by Idaho Conservative Blogger (ICB)
I have to admit that I had a hard time getting out of bed this morning. On twitter last night my last tweet was “Maybe I'll wake up in the morning to find Obama winning a second term was just a nightmare and Romney is Pres.” I knew it wasn’t so. This morning the spin is in full swing. Everyone is trying to explain why Obama won and Romney lost. Even those whose opinion I respect were wrong and are trying to make sense out of the election results.
Dick Morris who said Romney will win by a landslide wrote this morning, “I’ve got egg on my face. I predicted a Romney landslide and, instead, we ended up with an Obama squeaker. The key reason for my bum prediction is that I mistakenly believed that the 2008 surge in black, Latino, and young voter turnout would recede in 2012 to “normal” levels. Didn’t happen.”
Michael Barone who was with Morris on the landslide prediction said today, “What happened? I think fundamentals were trumped by mechanics and, to a lesser extent, by demographics.”
This morning Wall Street reacted negatively to Obama’s re-election by plummeting 200 points.
Some including Dick Morris are partially blaming NJ Governor Chris Christie for his post storm love-fest with Obama. In the same article Morris said, “But the more proximate cause of my error was that I did not take full account of the impact of hurricane Sandy and of Governor Chris Christie’s bipartisan march through New Jersey arm in arm with President (Barack) Obama. Not to mention Christe’s (sic) fawning promotion of Obama’s presidential leadership,” Morris writes. “It made all the difference.”
Some have said America just wasn’t in the mood to throw out our first black President. I'm not sure I subscribe to that though, I do believe Obama’s race played a part in his 2008 win. I wrote last month of Obama’s 2008 win, “There was strangeness in the air. Hope and Change was resonating with many Americans. Many who don’t normally vote or first time voters saw something in Obama that was appealing. The problem: It was all style over substance. It was being able to feel like a part of history. The ability to say, “I voted America’s first black president.” We showed the world despite our history of slavery and racism, we have finally moved past that nasty time. The election of Barack Obama proves it.”
I tend to agree with some of what Bill O’Reilly said last night on Fox News. "It's a changing country," O'Reilly said during Fox News' coverage. "The demographics are changing. It's not a traditional America anymore. And there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it. And he ran on it."
"Whereby 20 years ago President Obama would have been roundly defeated by an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney, the white establishment is now the minority," O'Reilly added. "And the voters, many of them, feel that this economic system is stacked against them, and they want stuff. You're going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama's way. People feel that they are entitled to things, and which candidate between the two is going to give them things?"
When all the counting is done President Obama will probably win just over 50% of the popular vote. Just fewer than 50% of American’s don’t pay any federal income tax, correlation? Why would those who don’t pay any taxes care if those who do pay taxes have to pay more? Taxes will raise now that Obama will be President for another four years.
Obama famous for style without substance did run on one thing, giving free stuff to people. Free health care, free contraception, free Obama phones, etc. I saw this recently and it brought a smile. It reminded me that all good comedy is based on truth. “Latest Chinese Proverb: "Give a man a welfare check, a cell phone, cash for his clunker, food stamps, section 8 housing, Medicaid, 100 weeks of unemployment checks, a 40-ounce malt liquor, needles, drugs, contraceptives, and designer Air Jordan shoes.....and he will vote Democrat for a lifetime."
Has American changed into a free stuff nation? Today, it appears so.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
Showing posts with label 2012 Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012 Election. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Sunday, November 4, 2012
The “Best Revenge” And The Worst Of Economies
by Austin Hill
It’s “game on” for the politics of retaliation.
While campaigning in the swing state of Ohio, President Obama’s supporters began to boo last Friday when he uttered the name “Mitt Romney.”
“No, no, no,” the President shouted, “don’t boo. Vote. Voting is the best revenge…”
Those who support the President’s re-election are to seek revenge on others. That’s quite a directive from the President of the United States, and it is quite a departure from the candidate of four years ago who promised to unite all Americans in the pursuit of higher purposes.
But it is nonetheless an example of that for which President Obama has become known -turning American against American. It’s more than an “our campaign versus theirs” remark. The implied message is that I will be made to feel better, if you are sufficiently maligned and impugned.
In particular it is meant to convey that if my government punishes you by taking away more of your money, then my life will somehow become more wonderful. It is a false premise that has emanated throughout Mr. Obama’s campaign for re-election and throughout his nearly four years of policies as well.
Reaction this weekend to the President’s “revenge” admonition was eerily similar to that which followed his famous “you didn’t build that” vitriol aimed at business owners last spring. Romney and Ryan made it a talking point from the stump, while the President’s surrogates went in to the usual “he was taken out of context” and “what he really meant was” explanations.
But consider how the President’s propensity for “revenge” on certain categories of Americans is at the epicenter of his economic ideas and rhetoric. Even back four years ago when he was promising to “bring us all together,” candidate Obama nonetheless consistently expressed disdain - and yes, an attitude of revenge – towards successful business enterprises.
Speaking to a stadium full of adoring followers in August of that year, then-Senator Obama went-off with a tirade about how American oil companies were making too much money! As the crowd cheered him on, he said, in part:
“…You’ve got oil companies making record profits…no… no companies in history have made the kind of profits the oil companies are makin’ right now…they..they…….one company, Exxon Mobil, made eleven billion dollars…billion, with a “b” ….last quarter….they made eleven billion dollars the quarter before that…makin’ money hand-over-fist…makin’ out like bandits…”
From there, Senator Obama went on to introduce his new “energy policy.” He wanted to raise taxes on oil companies (because, obviously, it is unfair if a company is “too profitable”), and use that “extra” tax revenue to give “working Americans” a thousand-dollar voucher that they could use to make gasoline purchases.
Senator Obama made no mention of the untold numbers of shareholders who invest their money in oil companies, nor any reference to the men and women who invest their talents and efforts into oil companies. And he certainly made no reference to fact that that oil companies actually provide us all with an essential product. No, Barack Obama is not given to such essential truths. Americans in 2008 were feeling fearful about the economy, and oil companies were enjoying success all at the same time – it was an opportunity to gin-up the desire for “revenge” that couldn’t be ignored.
Fast-forward to 2011. After signing landmark bills that sought “reforms” (read “revenge”) on banks, credit card companies, and – of course- health care providers, President Obama was feeling the heat over an economy that was still was not producing the much-needed job growth that had been promised. And while much of the business community had at that point refrained from admitting that we had a problem in Washington, DC, Las Vegas-based hotelier Steve Wynn finally broke the silence.
In July of that year, Wynn stated on a corporate conference call with his “Wynn Resorts” corporation what millions of us knew in our hearts.: “… This administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime…my customers… are frightened of this administration… Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America…those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America…”
After acknowledging the Obama-driven “fear” among America’s entrepreneurs and investors, Wynn further states that “the guy (President Obama) keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, they’re holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government and there's no need soft peddling it…It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman… And I'm telling you that the business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States… until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs…”
And here we are, two days away from another election. Those with the means of investing and growing the economy are indeed “on the sidelines,” shielding themselves from the President’s “revenge,” and we all are suffering as a consequence.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
It’s “game on” for the politics of retaliation.
While campaigning in the swing state of Ohio, President Obama’s supporters began to boo last Friday when he uttered the name “Mitt Romney.”
“No, no, no,” the President shouted, “don’t boo. Vote. Voting is the best revenge…”
Those who support the President’s re-election are to seek revenge on others. That’s quite a directive from the President of the United States, and it is quite a departure from the candidate of four years ago who promised to unite all Americans in the pursuit of higher purposes.
But it is nonetheless an example of that for which President Obama has become known -turning American against American. It’s more than an “our campaign versus theirs” remark. The implied message is that I will be made to feel better, if you are sufficiently maligned and impugned.
In particular it is meant to convey that if my government punishes you by taking away more of your money, then my life will somehow become more wonderful. It is a false premise that has emanated throughout Mr. Obama’s campaign for re-election and throughout his nearly four years of policies as well.
Reaction this weekend to the President’s “revenge” admonition was eerily similar to that which followed his famous “you didn’t build that” vitriol aimed at business owners last spring. Romney and Ryan made it a talking point from the stump, while the President’s surrogates went in to the usual “he was taken out of context” and “what he really meant was” explanations.
But consider how the President’s propensity for “revenge” on certain categories of Americans is at the epicenter of his economic ideas and rhetoric. Even back four years ago when he was promising to “bring us all together,” candidate Obama nonetheless consistently expressed disdain - and yes, an attitude of revenge – towards successful business enterprises.
Speaking to a stadium full of adoring followers in August of that year, then-Senator Obama went-off with a tirade about how American oil companies were making too much money! As the crowd cheered him on, he said, in part:
“…You’ve got oil companies making record profits…no… no companies in history have made the kind of profits the oil companies are makin’ right now…they..they…….one company, Exxon Mobil, made eleven billion dollars…billion, with a “b” ….last quarter….they made eleven billion dollars the quarter before that…makin’ money hand-over-fist…makin’ out like bandits…”
From there, Senator Obama went on to introduce his new “energy policy.” He wanted to raise taxes on oil companies (because, obviously, it is unfair if a company is “too profitable”), and use that “extra” tax revenue to give “working Americans” a thousand-dollar voucher that they could use to make gasoline purchases.
Senator Obama made no mention of the untold numbers of shareholders who invest their money in oil companies, nor any reference to the men and women who invest their talents and efforts into oil companies. And he certainly made no reference to fact that that oil companies actually provide us all with an essential product. No, Barack Obama is not given to such essential truths. Americans in 2008 were feeling fearful about the economy, and oil companies were enjoying success all at the same time – it was an opportunity to gin-up the desire for “revenge” that couldn’t be ignored.
Fast-forward to 2011. After signing landmark bills that sought “reforms” (read “revenge”) on banks, credit card companies, and – of course- health care providers, President Obama was feeling the heat over an economy that was still was not producing the much-needed job growth that had been promised. And while much of the business community had at that point refrained from admitting that we had a problem in Washington, DC, Las Vegas-based hotelier Steve Wynn finally broke the silence.
In July of that year, Wynn stated on a corporate conference call with his “Wynn Resorts” corporation what millions of us knew in our hearts.: “… This administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime…my customers… are frightened of this administration… Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America…those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America…”
After acknowledging the Obama-driven “fear” among America’s entrepreneurs and investors, Wynn further states that “the guy (President Obama) keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, they’re holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government and there's no need soft peddling it…It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman… And I'm telling you that the business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States… until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs…”
And here we are, two days away from another election. Those with the means of investing and growing the economy are indeed “on the sidelines,” shielding themselves from the President’s “revenge,” and we all are suffering as a consequence.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Entrepreneurs Weigh-In: What Do We Need Over The Next Four Years?
by Austin Hill
“…What the hell is he doing asking for another four years?”
Governor Chris Christie (R-New Jersey) was speaking on behalf of Mitt Romney in Virginia last week. He was talking about, and to, Barack Obama. “…If you don’t think you can change Washington from inside the White House, let’s give you the plane ticket back to Chicago you’ve earned.” With President Obama and his challenger running so close – and with so many states in-play – fiery rhetoric from the campaign trail is to be expected.
Yet Governor Christie raises a legitimate question. Besides the obvious reasons – first term Presidents are eligible to run for a second term (and most of them to), and President Obama thinks he is better suited to be President than Mitt Romney –what, really, is another four years of Barack Obama supposed to be about?
Americans who are the least bit interested in anything remotely resembling economic recovery and prosperity – yes, even Democrat Americans – should take a look at the facts. The evidence is overwhelming that President Obama’s policies over the last three and a half years are stifling our economy now, and will likely send us in to a slowdown in 2013.
That’s not mere partisan political rhetoric. Last week Reuters business news reported that Americans will face a “tougher 2013,” economically speaking, and they identified two of President Obama’s policies as the direct reason for the added difficulty.
For one, payroll taxes are set to rise on January 1. President Obama agreed to a temporary payroll tax cut back in 2009, but he insists that it needs to be raised again, and has insisted that he’ll let this lower payroll tax rate expire at the end of this year. According to the analysis reported by Reuters, this will take an estimated $125 billion out of our private sector economy, and will likely mean less consumer spending, less profitability for businesses, and a lower GDP.
And then there’s Obamacare. The President himself isn’t even trying any longer to pretend that his “health reform” law isn’t a tax, and thoughtful analysts in the world of business news can’t pretend either. According to Reuters, the new taxes on healthcare providers, insurance companies, and employers that provide health insurance to their workers will cause healthcare costs to shoot up nearly 7% in 2013 alone. This, combined with already stagnant wages, and the estimated $125 billion taken out of private household budgets because of the President’s payroll tax increase, all add up to more economic hardship for middle and lower income Americans.
In the same week, CNN Money published a report entitled “Entrepreneurship Is Weaker Than Ever.” The report noted that across the country, local government regulations are damaging small businesses and new start-ups. But it also claimed that “uncertainty in the market” – fears of rising taxes, IRS agents penalizing individuals and businesses for alleged Obamacare violations, and the lack of investment capital – were creating huge disincentives for would-be business owners to jump in.
And then there was The Atlantic, and Yahoo! Finance, that both jointly published an in-depth article with a striking title: “What Kills Small Business? Let’s Ask Them.”
The article states that “69 percent of small business owners and managers say that complicated government regulations are ‘major impediments; to the creation of new jobs.” The article also provided this analysis:
“When over two-thirds of job creators tell us how to create jobs in an economy that desperately needs them, candidates and elected officials should not only listen, they should also tell us precisely where they stand on these ideas. How government regulates commerce -- and not just whether government regulates commerce -- should be a major issue in this election. It would tell us a lot about how the candidates, if elected, would make critical day-to-day decisions that shape law, regulation, and, ultimately, the economy.”
These are some powerful words. And they are not emanating from “conservative” media outlets – if The Atlantic has any ideological leanings, it’s generally regarded as “left of center.” And while Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer is well known for her unquestioning support of President Obama and the Democrat Party, even the business news division of her media content operation can’t ignore that the President that she has helped to bankroll is doing serious damage to the economy (that’s how bad things have become).
Back in January of 2011 (after the President’s self-described “shellacking” at the polls in November of 2010), President Obama spoke at a General Electric plant in Schenectady, NY and tried to convey that he really does support free market enterprise, stating that “we’re going back to Thomas Edison’s principles… We’re going to build stuff and invent stuff…” The sad irony was that the speech was made days before the Obama Administration officially outlawed one of Thomas Edison’s greatest inventions, the incandescent light bulb.
Now, as he campaigns for re-election, the President clings to his “Forward” and “We can’t go back” phrases, and reminds us that he killed Osama bin Laden. Yet the stifling of our economy from the Obama Administration’s legacy of threats and fees and fines and taxes and bans on businesses, is undeniable.
Entrepreneurs and business owners are crying-out to be saved from the Obama oppression. Do American voters care?
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
“…What the hell is he doing asking for another four years?”
Governor Chris Christie (R-New Jersey) was speaking on behalf of Mitt Romney in Virginia last week. He was talking about, and to, Barack Obama. “…If you don’t think you can change Washington from inside the White House, let’s give you the plane ticket back to Chicago you’ve earned.” With President Obama and his challenger running so close – and with so many states in-play – fiery rhetoric from the campaign trail is to be expected.
Yet Governor Christie raises a legitimate question. Besides the obvious reasons – first term Presidents are eligible to run for a second term (and most of them to), and President Obama thinks he is better suited to be President than Mitt Romney –what, really, is another four years of Barack Obama supposed to be about?
Americans who are the least bit interested in anything remotely resembling economic recovery and prosperity – yes, even Democrat Americans – should take a look at the facts. The evidence is overwhelming that President Obama’s policies over the last three and a half years are stifling our economy now, and will likely send us in to a slowdown in 2013.
That’s not mere partisan political rhetoric. Last week Reuters business news reported that Americans will face a “tougher 2013,” economically speaking, and they identified two of President Obama’s policies as the direct reason for the added difficulty.
For one, payroll taxes are set to rise on January 1. President Obama agreed to a temporary payroll tax cut back in 2009, but he insists that it needs to be raised again, and has insisted that he’ll let this lower payroll tax rate expire at the end of this year. According to the analysis reported by Reuters, this will take an estimated $125 billion out of our private sector economy, and will likely mean less consumer spending, less profitability for businesses, and a lower GDP.
And then there’s Obamacare. The President himself isn’t even trying any longer to pretend that his “health reform” law isn’t a tax, and thoughtful analysts in the world of business news can’t pretend either. According to Reuters, the new taxes on healthcare providers, insurance companies, and employers that provide health insurance to their workers will cause healthcare costs to shoot up nearly 7% in 2013 alone. This, combined with already stagnant wages, and the estimated $125 billion taken out of private household budgets because of the President’s payroll tax increase, all add up to more economic hardship for middle and lower income Americans.
In the same week, CNN Money published a report entitled “Entrepreneurship Is Weaker Than Ever.” The report noted that across the country, local government regulations are damaging small businesses and new start-ups. But it also claimed that “uncertainty in the market” – fears of rising taxes, IRS agents penalizing individuals and businesses for alleged Obamacare violations, and the lack of investment capital – were creating huge disincentives for would-be business owners to jump in.
And then there was The Atlantic, and Yahoo! Finance, that both jointly published an in-depth article with a striking title: “What Kills Small Business? Let’s Ask Them.”
The article states that “69 percent of small business owners and managers say that complicated government regulations are ‘major impediments; to the creation of new jobs.” The article also provided this analysis:
“When over two-thirds of job creators tell us how to create jobs in an economy that desperately needs them, candidates and elected officials should not only listen, they should also tell us precisely where they stand on these ideas. How government regulates commerce -- and not just whether government regulates commerce -- should be a major issue in this election. It would tell us a lot about how the candidates, if elected, would make critical day-to-day decisions that shape law, regulation, and, ultimately, the economy.”
These are some powerful words. And they are not emanating from “conservative” media outlets – if The Atlantic has any ideological leanings, it’s generally regarded as “left of center.” And while Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer is well known for her unquestioning support of President Obama and the Democrat Party, even the business news division of her media content operation can’t ignore that the President that she has helped to bankroll is doing serious damage to the economy (that’s how bad things have become).
Back in January of 2011 (after the President’s self-described “shellacking” at the polls in November of 2010), President Obama spoke at a General Electric plant in Schenectady, NY and tried to convey that he really does support free market enterprise, stating that “we’re going back to Thomas Edison’s principles… We’re going to build stuff and invent stuff…” The sad irony was that the speech was made days before the Obama Administration officially outlawed one of Thomas Edison’s greatest inventions, the incandescent light bulb.
Now, as he campaigns for re-election, the President clings to his “Forward” and “We can’t go back” phrases, and reminds us that he killed Osama bin Laden. Yet the stifling of our economy from the Obama Administration’s legacy of threats and fees and fines and taxes and bans on businesses, is undeniable.
Entrepreneurs and business owners are crying-out to be saved from the Obama oppression. Do American voters care?
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Get A Grip: Americans Must Demand Better Government In November And Beyond
by Austin Hill
Barack Obama is beating Mitt Romney.
Wait- Romney and Obama are tied in Pennsylvania.
And how about all those bungled calls from the NFL fill-in refs?
Americans are seriously pre-occupied as we enter the fourth quarter of 2012. Obsessions about the football season and “Dancing with The Stars” are a pleasant diversion from our present hardship and gloomy future, and frustrations over the logic-defying presidential polls makes for interesting talk show fodder.
But after the election – and after the close of 2012 – Americans will need to grapple with myriad problems in our government. Whoever wins the White House will face an avalanche of trouble in the months ahead, and the ways in which these problems are addressed will reverberate for generations.
Americans must begin to see through the rhetoric of politicians and the slant and soundbytes of the media, and demand better government from those elected to serve. The “pass the bill and then figure out what’s in it” approach is unacceptable. So let’s start with our “get a grip” agenda with this: Americans must sober-up about our economic and fiscal condition.
At present it would seem that we’re taking the upcoming election about as seriously as a football game. Team Obama has the home field advantage, while Romney and company are the visitors trying to upset Obama at his homecoming. The make-up of the Congress will then round-out each team’s roster, but the “players” are thought to be all essentially the same.
Yet America is in serious trouble. Private industry is suffering shell shock from the flurry of demands and restrictions placed upon it in the last three years, most of which have stemmed from environmental constraints, so-called “banking reform,” mortgage restrictions, and Obamacare. Our currency is being debased by the minute, as our government’s debt exceeds 70% of our GDP and the Federal Reserve continues to print money while keeping interest rates artificially low.
President Obama is committed to making matters worse- he promises higher taxes and more government spending, and has offered no vision for undoing the disastrous and damaging components of Obamacare. Mr. Romney is moving in the correct direction by proposing an expansion of free trade and modest spending cuts, but does not (and in political terms perhaps cannot) come close to where we must go.
So Americans must decide – do we want prosperity and opportunity for the long-term, or do we want the short-term yet unsustainable pleasure of politicians satiating our petty jealousies towards “rich people” and dolling-out lots of free goodies? If it’s the former we want, then we’ll have to seriously change some things: freeze income tax rates where they are; cut corporate taxes; raise the Social Security eligibility age to 72 (for, say, American workers age 45 and younger) and allow for private investment of portions one’s withholdings; gut Obamacare and start over; and cut taxes on small businesses and restrictions on small business lending.
And here’s another agenda item: America must begin utilizing its own resources again. While the currencies of Europe, Japan and the U.S. have fallen in to varying levels of disrepute over the past four years, the dollars of Canada, New Zealand, and Australia have remained relatively strong. And these three countries share something else in common as well- they all harvest and export their own natural resources.
Canada exports oil and natural gas. Australia exports iron ore. New Zealand uses its land to produce and export food, wood products and heavy machinery. Americans must decide – do we want to be more prosperous and secure, or do we want to feel like we’re doing something nice for plant and animal life by not using our natural resources?
A radical environmental agenda has co-opted the national dialog to the point that we only talk about drilling and refining when gasoline surpasses four dollars a gallon. And as for manufacturing and farming – plenty of us blindly accept the notion that these endeavors do nothing but rape and pillage the earth and consume “too much” energy (if you don’t believe this, ask a farmer in California). It’s time to utilize our resources and unshackle our farmers and manufacturers – and to do this we have to demand change with our government.
And agenda item number three: Americans must respect private enterprise as the necessary engine of our sustenance, instead of allowing it to be co-opted for political agendas. President Obama’s “renewable energy” agenda sounds noble and makes people feel good. But after running up untold billions of dollars in debt with the financing of “green energy” companies (over 80% of which were headed-up by Obama campaign donors), there has been no such energy produced and a majority of these companies have already lapsed into bankruptcy. What masquerades as the “green energy industry” is nothing more than debt for future generations spent financing the President’s environmental politics of today.
A similar phenomenon took hold last decade. Despite President Bush’s attempts to slow things down, both Republican and Democrat leadership in the Congress enabled the cheap credit, lax lending, and “affordable housing” policies that supposedly drove “home ownership” to an all time high (it’s hard to say no when “everybody gets a house”). It made the politicians popular in the short-run, but it drove us to the brink when the bubble burst. Government co-opted the real estate and lending industries, and it failed us in painful ways.
We are not helpless victims of politicians. But will we demand better?
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Barack Obama is beating Mitt Romney.
Wait- Romney and Obama are tied in Pennsylvania.
And how about all those bungled calls from the NFL fill-in refs?
Americans are seriously pre-occupied as we enter the fourth quarter of 2012. Obsessions about the football season and “Dancing with The Stars” are a pleasant diversion from our present hardship and gloomy future, and frustrations over the logic-defying presidential polls makes for interesting talk show fodder.
But after the election – and after the close of 2012 – Americans will need to grapple with myriad problems in our government. Whoever wins the White House will face an avalanche of trouble in the months ahead, and the ways in which these problems are addressed will reverberate for generations.
Americans must begin to see through the rhetoric of politicians and the slant and soundbytes of the media, and demand better government from those elected to serve. The “pass the bill and then figure out what’s in it” approach is unacceptable. So let’s start with our “get a grip” agenda with this: Americans must sober-up about our economic and fiscal condition.
At present it would seem that we’re taking the upcoming election about as seriously as a football game. Team Obama has the home field advantage, while Romney and company are the visitors trying to upset Obama at his homecoming. The make-up of the Congress will then round-out each team’s roster, but the “players” are thought to be all essentially the same.
Yet America is in serious trouble. Private industry is suffering shell shock from the flurry of demands and restrictions placed upon it in the last three years, most of which have stemmed from environmental constraints, so-called “banking reform,” mortgage restrictions, and Obamacare. Our currency is being debased by the minute, as our government’s debt exceeds 70% of our GDP and the Federal Reserve continues to print money while keeping interest rates artificially low.
President Obama is committed to making matters worse- he promises higher taxes and more government spending, and has offered no vision for undoing the disastrous and damaging components of Obamacare. Mr. Romney is moving in the correct direction by proposing an expansion of free trade and modest spending cuts, but does not (and in political terms perhaps cannot) come close to where we must go.
So Americans must decide – do we want prosperity and opportunity for the long-term, or do we want the short-term yet unsustainable pleasure of politicians satiating our petty jealousies towards “rich people” and dolling-out lots of free goodies? If it’s the former we want, then we’ll have to seriously change some things: freeze income tax rates where they are; cut corporate taxes; raise the Social Security eligibility age to 72 (for, say, American workers age 45 and younger) and allow for private investment of portions one’s withholdings; gut Obamacare and start over; and cut taxes on small businesses and restrictions on small business lending.
And here’s another agenda item: America must begin utilizing its own resources again. While the currencies of Europe, Japan and the U.S. have fallen in to varying levels of disrepute over the past four years, the dollars of Canada, New Zealand, and Australia have remained relatively strong. And these three countries share something else in common as well- they all harvest and export their own natural resources.
Canada exports oil and natural gas. Australia exports iron ore. New Zealand uses its land to produce and export food, wood products and heavy machinery. Americans must decide – do we want to be more prosperous and secure, or do we want to feel like we’re doing something nice for plant and animal life by not using our natural resources?
A radical environmental agenda has co-opted the national dialog to the point that we only talk about drilling and refining when gasoline surpasses four dollars a gallon. And as for manufacturing and farming – plenty of us blindly accept the notion that these endeavors do nothing but rape and pillage the earth and consume “too much” energy (if you don’t believe this, ask a farmer in California). It’s time to utilize our resources and unshackle our farmers and manufacturers – and to do this we have to demand change with our government.
And agenda item number three: Americans must respect private enterprise as the necessary engine of our sustenance, instead of allowing it to be co-opted for political agendas. President Obama’s “renewable energy” agenda sounds noble and makes people feel good. But after running up untold billions of dollars in debt with the financing of “green energy” companies (over 80% of which were headed-up by Obama campaign donors), there has been no such energy produced and a majority of these companies have already lapsed into bankruptcy. What masquerades as the “green energy industry” is nothing more than debt for future generations spent financing the President’s environmental politics of today.
A similar phenomenon took hold last decade. Despite President Bush’s attempts to slow things down, both Republican and Democrat leadership in the Congress enabled the cheap credit, lax lending, and “affordable housing” policies that supposedly drove “home ownership” to an all time high (it’s hard to say no when “everybody gets a house”). It made the politicians popular in the short-run, but it drove us to the brink when the bubble burst. Government co-opted the real estate and lending industries, and it failed us in painful ways.
We are not helpless victims of politicians. But will we demand better?
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
The American Dream, Or The Dreams Of Obama’s Father?
By Austin Hill
You think President Obama is avoiding the subject of the economy?
Think again.
In reality, thoughts and ideas about the economy, and about economics, and about money – especially thoughts about other people’s money – animate just about everything that President Obama says and does. He is fixated on his belief that it is a grave injustice for a private individual, family or organization to be financially successful, and he is determined that his presidency will be the one to save our country from this “problem.”
So, while President Obama conveniently ignores the data on our current economic conditions – 8.3% unemployment, a decline in manufacturing, a rise in unemployment benefits claims and a drop in the labor force participation rate – he nonetheless cannot stop talking about the economy, and his vision of economic “transformation.” His contempt for individual economic achievements is a part of who he is – he cannot stop being himself.
The President’s recent obsession about Mitt Romney’s tax returns is only his latest in a long history of fussing about other people being wealthy. And the President’s disdainful attitude towards privately possessed wealth should surprise absolutely no one- his own father was also a powerful governmental figure who displayed this same kind of indignation.
Barack Hussein Obama Sr., the biological father of our President, was a bureaucrat in the communist government of Kenya back when the nation first declared its independence in the 1960’s. And while Kenya’s government was at that time moving towards pro-Western, free-market economic reforms, Obama staunchly opposed such changes.
Thus, Mr. Obama published an academic paper in 1965, responding to his government colleagues who supported the westernization of Kenya. Entitled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” Mr. Obama advised Kenya’s then-President Jomo Kenyatta against relying on private investors, private capital, and private property ownership, as a means of improving the country’s dreadful economy. Why was private capital and investment a problem? Because, Mr. Obama reasoned, private investors inevitably seek to earn “dividends” from their investments, and “turning a profit” was the gravest of all immoralities. Instead, Mr. Obama proposed higher taxes on the wealthy, and a redistribution of that money, for the “collective good” of the nation.
“Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income,” Mr. Obama wrote, “so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” In the view of Barack Hussein Obama Sr., the right of the individual person to freely work, earn, and invest, meant nothing. All that mattered was the “collective good” of the nation. And if confiscating certain people’s hard-earned money could help benefit “everyone,” then so be it. That wealth would be put to better use, Mr. Obama argued, if it were controlled by the leader of the government.
Given this bit of President Obama’s familial history, it is not surprising that throughout his public life he himself has advocated for many of the same ideas that his father did over half a century ago. During the last presidential election cycle, alone, then-Senator Obama pushed for higher income taxes on “the rich” and higher business taxes on “excess profits” (his definition of “rich” and “excessive” changed almost weekly during the campaign); higher taxes on energy companies; government-imposed limits on private corporate salaries; and – his father would be so proud – higher taxes on dividend earnings. He even suggested at one point that the U.S. government should start taxing capital – not a new tax on interest or dividends derived from investment capital, but a tax on money sitting in banks doing nothing.
Now, four years later, the President is running for re-election in an economic environment made weaker by his own policies and ideas. And it is easy to dismiss as “mere politics” the President’s obsession with Mr. Romney’s net worth, his past work at a venture capital firm, and his annual tax returns – presumably the President is trying to portray Mr. Romney as a heartless aristocrat who is “out of touch” with everyday middleclass Americans.
But given what we know of President Obama and his expressed views of the world, it also stands to reason that, for him, the wealth that private citizen Mitt Romney possesses – as well as the wealth possessed by other private citizens like Mr. Romney – really is the most serious problem facing America today. Even just last week, amid more negative economic reports, the President delivered yet another of his speeches on his “new vision of America where prosperity is shared.”
What the President does not seem to understand (and what his father seemingly never understood), is that prosperity must first be created – by inventors, executives, entrepreneurs, investors, small business owners, and yes – sometimes even by “rich people” – before it can be re-distributed and “shared” by anybody. And if a society chooses to punish its wealthy members with ever-expanding taxation, rather than encouraging them to create more wealth, then eventually even the smartest of politicians run out of wealth to re-distribute.
So will the U.S. return to being a country where anybody can pursue the “American dream” without fear of retribution? Or has President Obama successfully supplanted the American dream with – to paraphrase one of his book titles – the dreams from his father?
We, the people, will have our say on this in November. Let’s hope we all make an informed choice.
Comments are invited! Send feedback to: WatchDog .
You think President Obama is avoiding the subject of the economy?
Think again.
In reality, thoughts and ideas about the economy, and about economics, and about money – especially thoughts about other people’s money – animate just about everything that President Obama says and does. He is fixated on his belief that it is a grave injustice for a private individual, family or organization to be financially successful, and he is determined that his presidency will be the one to save our country from this “problem.”
So, while President Obama conveniently ignores the data on our current economic conditions – 8.3% unemployment, a decline in manufacturing, a rise in unemployment benefits claims and a drop in the labor force participation rate – he nonetheless cannot stop talking about the economy, and his vision of economic “transformation.” His contempt for individual economic achievements is a part of who he is – he cannot stop being himself.
The President’s recent obsession about Mitt Romney’s tax returns is only his latest in a long history of fussing about other people being wealthy. And the President’s disdainful attitude towards privately possessed wealth should surprise absolutely no one- his own father was also a powerful governmental figure who displayed this same kind of indignation.
Barack Hussein Obama Sr., the biological father of our President, was a bureaucrat in the communist government of Kenya back when the nation first declared its independence in the 1960’s. And while Kenya’s government was at that time moving towards pro-Western, free-market economic reforms, Obama staunchly opposed such changes.
Thus, Mr. Obama published an academic paper in 1965, responding to his government colleagues who supported the westernization of Kenya. Entitled “Problems Facing Our Socialism,” Mr. Obama advised Kenya’s then-President Jomo Kenyatta against relying on private investors, private capital, and private property ownership, as a means of improving the country’s dreadful economy. Why was private capital and investment a problem? Because, Mr. Obama reasoned, private investors inevitably seek to earn “dividends” from their investments, and “turning a profit” was the gravest of all immoralities. Instead, Mr. Obama proposed higher taxes on the wealthy, and a redistribution of that money, for the “collective good” of the nation.
“Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income,” Mr. Obama wrote, “so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” In the view of Barack Hussein Obama Sr., the right of the individual person to freely work, earn, and invest, meant nothing. All that mattered was the “collective good” of the nation. And if confiscating certain people’s hard-earned money could help benefit “everyone,” then so be it. That wealth would be put to better use, Mr. Obama argued, if it were controlled by the leader of the government.
Given this bit of President Obama’s familial history, it is not surprising that throughout his public life he himself has advocated for many of the same ideas that his father did over half a century ago. During the last presidential election cycle, alone, then-Senator Obama pushed for higher income taxes on “the rich” and higher business taxes on “excess profits” (his definition of “rich” and “excessive” changed almost weekly during the campaign); higher taxes on energy companies; government-imposed limits on private corporate salaries; and – his father would be so proud – higher taxes on dividend earnings. He even suggested at one point that the U.S. government should start taxing capital – not a new tax on interest or dividends derived from investment capital, but a tax on money sitting in banks doing nothing.
Now, four years later, the President is running for re-election in an economic environment made weaker by his own policies and ideas. And it is easy to dismiss as “mere politics” the President’s obsession with Mr. Romney’s net worth, his past work at a venture capital firm, and his annual tax returns – presumably the President is trying to portray Mr. Romney as a heartless aristocrat who is “out of touch” with everyday middleclass Americans.
But given what we know of President Obama and his expressed views of the world, it also stands to reason that, for him, the wealth that private citizen Mitt Romney possesses – as well as the wealth possessed by other private citizens like Mr. Romney – really is the most serious problem facing America today. Even just last week, amid more negative economic reports, the President delivered yet another of his speeches on his “new vision of America where prosperity is shared.”
What the President does not seem to understand (and what his father seemingly never understood), is that prosperity must first be created – by inventors, executives, entrepreneurs, investors, small business owners, and yes – sometimes even by “rich people” – before it can be re-distributed and “shared” by anybody. And if a society chooses to punish its wealthy members with ever-expanding taxation, rather than encouraging them to create more wealth, then eventually even the smartest of politicians run out of wealth to re-distribute.
So will the U.S. return to being a country where anybody can pursue the “American dream” without fear of retribution? Or has President Obama successfully supplanted the American dream with – to paraphrase one of his book titles – the dreams from his father?
We, the people, will have our say on this in November. Let’s hope we all make an informed choice.
Comments are invited! Send feedback to: WatchDog .
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Mormonism Or Marxism: Which Would You Prefer In The White House?
By Austin Hill
Is a Romney nomination inevitable?
No.
But former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is looking very strong in Iowa and New Hampshire, where presidential primary voting begins this week. Likewise, a current Rasmussen poll shows Romney with a six percentage point lead over President Obama in a hypothetical election match up.
So things are looking very good for Mitt Romney, as he seeks the Republican nomination for the presidency. And this means that Americans will likely have to answer an important question in 2012: which would you prefer at the White House -Mormon theology, or Marxist liberation theology?
I wish I didn’t have to ask this question. But as Romney gets closer to the presidency, the criticisms of his church affiliation and theological convictions will get louder. And if you’re troubled by Mitt’s Mormonism, you should be even more concerned about the religious affiliations of our current President.
As for Mr. Romney, he has thus far run a good campaign and has managed to mostly stay out of theological debates. But in the last presidential election cycle the “Mormon thing” proved to be unavoidable, and as primary voting begins in religiously conservative regions of the country, his Mormonism will become a big deal again.
Given this certainty, here’s some advice for Governor Romney: don’t repeat your mistake of 2008 of trying to convince “them” that you are one of “them.” The more you stand in front of conservative Evangelical and Catholic audiences and ascribe terms like “born again” and “Christian” to yourself, the more they’ll be saying “oh no you are not!”
Leave the theological battles over “who is really a Christian” to other people, Mr. Romney, and talk to us instead about the values and policy ideas that America so desperately needs.
When questions arise about your church, tell us, Mr. Romney, why your Mormonism matters: your church informs your understanding of why our society must uphold the dignity of every human individual; it teaches you about the profound importance of human liberty (I love your church’s “Choose The Right” motto – try telling us why it is so important that each of us have the freedom to “choose”); and it affirms to the world that marriage is good for society. Try to convey that, while our theological differences are real, our values are more universal and uniting.
On this point, you might borrow from former President George W Bush. In a little-known March 2001 speech, Bush spoke at the opening of the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington. Bush, of course, is a Methodist-turned-Evangelical, yet he was still warmly received at the ceremony by the Catholic hierarchy.
And Bush didn’t try to pretend that he was Catholic, either. “I may not be a parishioner…” he stated as he began his remarks, “but I’m a sojourner with you…” He then brilliantly went on to say that we are “one” with our values, and that the Pope was a great teacher of those values. To those who would prefer to bash Romney’s church rather than seriously considering who should be our next President, I would ask this: have you scrutinized President Obama’s theological affiliations the way you’ve scrutinized Mormonism?
For the record, Barack Obama hasn’t been known for regular church attendance since moving-in to the White House (this puts him in good company with many of our previous Presidents). Yet his decades-long affiliation with the radical Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, a central outlet of liberation theology, is quite well documented.
This is to say that President Obama has been steeped in a theological worldview that essentially takes the economic and “class struggle” teachings of Karl Marx, and superimposes Bible verses over it. It preaches that successful people are oppressors who need to be conquered, and that the “oppressed” should live off of other people’s largess. These sorts of ideas -which are inherently economic in their nature -are prevalent in governments throughout the third world, Latin America, and parts of Europe. And they are blessed and affirmed in churches that espouse liberation theology – which is all a part of our President’s religious background.
Are there theological differences between Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, and the Evangelicalism and Catholicism that a majority of Americans embrace? Yes, there absolutely is.
But it is also true that the Mormon Church movement is an American-born religious movement, and teaches that freedom is something that is sacred and to be safe-guarded.
President Obama’s liberation theology, on the other hand, is at war with Western values. It teaches that freedom is inherently problematic (it inevitably leads to a society of oppressors and victims), and only through the power of government control can the evils of a free society be corrected.
I’d be delighted to see Mormonism replace the Marxism that presently inhabits the White House. But will Americans be willing to honestly examine them both?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Is a Romney nomination inevitable?
No.
But former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is looking very strong in Iowa and New Hampshire, where presidential primary voting begins this week. Likewise, a current Rasmussen poll shows Romney with a six percentage point lead over President Obama in a hypothetical election match up.
So things are looking very good for Mitt Romney, as he seeks the Republican nomination for the presidency. And this means that Americans will likely have to answer an important question in 2012: which would you prefer at the White House -Mormon theology, or Marxist liberation theology?
I wish I didn’t have to ask this question. But as Romney gets closer to the presidency, the criticisms of his church affiliation and theological convictions will get louder. And if you’re troubled by Mitt’s Mormonism, you should be even more concerned about the religious affiliations of our current President.
As for Mr. Romney, he has thus far run a good campaign and has managed to mostly stay out of theological debates. But in the last presidential election cycle the “Mormon thing” proved to be unavoidable, and as primary voting begins in religiously conservative regions of the country, his Mormonism will become a big deal again.
Given this certainty, here’s some advice for Governor Romney: don’t repeat your mistake of 2008 of trying to convince “them” that you are one of “them.” The more you stand in front of conservative Evangelical and Catholic audiences and ascribe terms like “born again” and “Christian” to yourself, the more they’ll be saying “oh no you are not!”
Leave the theological battles over “who is really a Christian” to other people, Mr. Romney, and talk to us instead about the values and policy ideas that America so desperately needs.
When questions arise about your church, tell us, Mr. Romney, why your Mormonism matters: your church informs your understanding of why our society must uphold the dignity of every human individual; it teaches you about the profound importance of human liberty (I love your church’s “Choose The Right” motto – try telling us why it is so important that each of us have the freedom to “choose”); and it affirms to the world that marriage is good for society. Try to convey that, while our theological differences are real, our values are more universal and uniting.
On this point, you might borrow from former President George W Bush. In a little-known March 2001 speech, Bush spoke at the opening of the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington. Bush, of course, is a Methodist-turned-Evangelical, yet he was still warmly received at the ceremony by the Catholic hierarchy.
And Bush didn’t try to pretend that he was Catholic, either. “I may not be a parishioner…” he stated as he began his remarks, “but I’m a sojourner with you…” He then brilliantly went on to say that we are “one” with our values, and that the Pope was a great teacher of those values. To those who would prefer to bash Romney’s church rather than seriously considering who should be our next President, I would ask this: have you scrutinized President Obama’s theological affiliations the way you’ve scrutinized Mormonism?
For the record, Barack Obama hasn’t been known for regular church attendance since moving-in to the White House (this puts him in good company with many of our previous Presidents). Yet his decades-long affiliation with the radical Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, a central outlet of liberation theology, is quite well documented.
This is to say that President Obama has been steeped in a theological worldview that essentially takes the economic and “class struggle” teachings of Karl Marx, and superimposes Bible verses over it. It preaches that successful people are oppressors who need to be conquered, and that the “oppressed” should live off of other people’s largess. These sorts of ideas -which are inherently economic in their nature -are prevalent in governments throughout the third world, Latin America, and parts of Europe. And they are blessed and affirmed in churches that espouse liberation theology – which is all a part of our President’s religious background.
Are there theological differences between Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, and the Evangelicalism and Catholicism that a majority of Americans embrace? Yes, there absolutely is.
But it is also true that the Mormon Church movement is an American-born religious movement, and teaches that freedom is something that is sacred and to be safe-guarded.
President Obama’s liberation theology, on the other hand, is at war with Western values. It teaches that freedom is inherently problematic (it inevitably leads to a society of oppressors and victims), and only through the power of government control can the evils of a free society be corrected.
I’d be delighted to see Mormonism replace the Marxism that presently inhabits the White House. But will Americans be willing to honestly examine them both?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
