Obama + Congress= Economic chaos
Exclusive: Chuck Norris cautions citizens,'Rome's burning, Caesar's stoking the fire!'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 02, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
By Chuck Norris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Reagan was right, "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
The political and financial math is easy to calculate. It doesn't take an MBA or a rocket scientist to figure it out – just an honest assessment of Washington's present landscape. Here's how the equation pans out:
America's political love affair with President Obama
+ The Democratic majority's coercions in Congress
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
= Trillions of dollars in new debt for Americans (or more economic chaos)
The next stage of out-of-control government spending started with Bush's Wall Street bailout, or TARP, of $700 billion (new debt No. 1). But Congress didn't learn through that failure, and apparently neither did Obama. So the newly elected president pushed for the next $787 billion stimulus bill (debt No. 2). And that wasn't enough either, so the recent $410 billion omnibus spending bill (with 9,000 earmarks – 60 percent Democrat and 40 percent Republican in origin) is being railroaded through Congress to keep government moving until September (debt No. 3). And then Obama informed us last week that another $634 billion would be required for a down payment for universal healthcare – before there's a plan, there's already a payment (debt No. 4). And all of that doesn't include other stimuli on the government horizon, as Rep. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, noted when he called the mammoth $787 billion spending bill "stimulus No. 1" (that's debt No. 5, debt No. 6, debt No. 7, etc.).
If that isn't enough, Obama is asking for another roughly $3,600,000,000,000 (nearly $4 trillion) budget proposal for 2010, despite that the White House projects a 2009 budget shortfall of $1.5 trillion – triple the $455 billion in 2008. Even liberal media admits that Obama's spending will "leave a string of deficits dwarfing any in the nation's history."
All of these wild expenditures would be a little more bearable if we saw any signs of economic recovery. But how has all this alleged stimuli stabilized and grown the economy and the market? As our government has bailed, the Dow has dropped 2,000 points since Obama took office, roughly 200 points after every major speech he has made. And, yet, the borrowing and bailing goes on and on and on.
At what point does a spend-happy Democrat-leaning Congress protest its primary leader's outrageous borrowing and budget? When he reaches $5 trillion? $8 trillion? Is any Democrat politician concerned that such levels of escalating debt and spending will promote hyper-interest rates and a dead-in-the-water value of the dollar that leads other nations to no longer risk the purchase of our treasury bonds? Will the American public allow Washington to drive us to the poor house, as they prompt us to continue to chant, "Yes we can!" keep borrowing?
How can Obama and any congressional leaders tolerate for one moment during this recession any of the 9,000 earmarks, totaling $7.7 billion, in the $410 billion omnibus spending bill? How can they justify $1.8 million for swine odor control in Iowa or $200,000 for a tattoo removal program in Los Angeles? Have they all lost their fiscal minds?
So the big question is: How does Obama get away with racking up more expenses in his first 30 days in office than all the presidents combined had since the founding of our republic? Some say our recession warrants it. Others say his administration has played, or preyed, upon our economic woes. But I think it takes more than even a real depression to cause the type of unbridled spending we've seen over the last months. It takes the perfect economic and political storm, which is brewing right now over our nation, led by a president who has convinced the majority that "only government" is our savior.
Bernard Goldberg's "A Slobbering Love Affair" is a great book about the media's blind bias and infatuation with Obama, but his hypnotic effects permeate every stratum of society, from political corridors to public schools. Why? Because he's young, hip, cool, liberal and charismatic – and that's what sells today in America. Objectiveness and criticism flies right out the window at the mere mention of his name or any discussion of his excessive spending plans.
If G.W. Bush were still in office and made the exact same financial and legislative proposals, he would be publicly filleted and politically hung out on the wire for reckless monetary rule. Yet Obama's economic spending makes Bush's wartime bills look like chicken feed. But few Democratic leaders or pundits even question, let alone criticize, his fiscal leadership. Financial gurus who once railed Bush for excessive bailing now bow the knee at Obama's unbridled borrowing. Proof can be witnessed on television nearly every day, and last week was no exception.
On "Good Morning America" last Thursday, two of ABC's financial experts graded Obama's excessive borrowing and fiscal performance as a "B," while guest FOX financial expert Dave Ramsey rated it an "F." Despite the two "B" grades, one of the ABC financial experts quipped that one of the biggest problems with Obama's bailouts is that there is no real form of government accountability over the money pouring out of Washington. Yet they maintained their "B" grade for Obama's stewardship plan?
Here's an even better example. As Obama addressed Congress last Tuesday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi led the way in emotive spontaneous applause for her political hero. Pop-up Pelosi was bouncing up and down like Tigger on steroids, forcing Vice President Biden to rise "slowly" every time she jumped up, while trying to hide his frustration with her. Her eyes and facial expressions seemed almost giddy as she gazed at Obama, like a teenager infatuated with the popular high school jock.
As I watched this obsessive congressional circus, I asked myself, "Is this the type of objective bipartisan leadership we want running our government, leading our nation, and spending our money?"
If we are ever to restore the fiscal and leadership sanity to our government and economy, we need not reinvent the Great Depression wheel of Roosevelt's New Deal. We need to look to a time when Congress was more frugal in its spending and stabilized our government and economy. And in the past 100 years, one of the best examples of that occurred when Newt Gingrich led Congress in the mid-to-late '90s. I'm not justifying every financial move they made back then, but, despite losing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution by only one Senate vote, they still committed to spending caps and balancing the budget, which they did for four consecutive years for the first time since the 1920s.
The Congress of the 1990s steadied and strengthened the economy by following four priorities and principles, which, fascinating to note, are being turned on their heads at this moment by the present administration. As Newt noted in his excellent book, "Real Change," Congress' top priorities were to:
1. Cut taxes to increase economic growth and therefore increase revenues (unlike Obama's tax hikes, which will retard economic growth and depress revenues);
2. Set priorities, and increase spending in key areas while reducing it in nonessential areas (unlike Obama's fiscal priorities of "healthcare, energy and education," which are based not upon what is best for the economy, but what is reflective of typical partisan preferences and doing what is politically expedient);
3. Eliminate pork-barrel spending (unlike the 9,000 earmarks in the present $410 billion omnibus spending bill, which is nothing short of absolute economic ludicrousness, mismanagement and waste within our present crisis.);
4. Shift from expensive, wasteful systems to smarter spending; don't merely look at more inexpensive ways but productive ones too (unlike Obama's theory to spend our way to prosperity, which is sure way to sink America.)
Our government is hemorrhaging money. The nanny state is becoming the norm. Our founders are rolling in their graves. And at this very moment, Washington's credit-crazy and debt-accumulating addiction is dissolving our sovereignty like a sugar cube in coffee by handing our financial autonomy over to the power of other nations.
In other words, Rome is burning, and Caesar is stoking the fire!
Time is running out, but it's not too late to reverse Washington's fiscal frenzy. Don't just write, but hound your representatives to live and legislate by the preceding four proven priorities and principles of governmental and monetary prudence.
Exclusive: Chuck Norris cautions citizens,'Rome's burning, Caesar's stoking the fire!'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 02, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
By Chuck Norris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Reagan was right, "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
The political and financial math is easy to calculate. It doesn't take an MBA or a rocket scientist to figure it out – just an honest assessment of Washington's present landscape. Here's how the equation pans out:
America's political love affair with President Obama
+ The Democratic majority's coercions in Congress
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
= Trillions of dollars in new debt for Americans (or more economic chaos)
The next stage of out-of-control government spending started with Bush's Wall Street bailout, or TARP, of $700 billion (new debt No. 1). But Congress didn't learn through that failure, and apparently neither did Obama. So the newly elected president pushed for the next $787 billion stimulus bill (debt No. 2). And that wasn't enough either, so the recent $410 billion omnibus spending bill (with 9,000 earmarks – 60 percent Democrat and 40 percent Republican in origin) is being railroaded through Congress to keep government moving until September (debt No. 3). And then Obama informed us last week that another $634 billion would be required for a down payment for universal healthcare – before there's a plan, there's already a payment (debt No. 4). And all of that doesn't include other stimuli on the government horizon, as Rep. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, noted when he called the mammoth $787 billion spending bill "stimulus No. 1" (that's debt No. 5, debt No. 6, debt No. 7, etc.).
If that isn't enough, Obama is asking for another roughly $3,600,000,000,000 (nearly $4 trillion) budget proposal for 2010, despite that the White House projects a 2009 budget shortfall of $1.5 trillion – triple the $455 billion in 2008. Even liberal media admits that Obama's spending will "leave a string of deficits dwarfing any in the nation's history."
All of these wild expenditures would be a little more bearable if we saw any signs of economic recovery. But how has all this alleged stimuli stabilized and grown the economy and the market? As our government has bailed, the Dow has dropped 2,000 points since Obama took office, roughly 200 points after every major speech he has made. And, yet, the borrowing and bailing goes on and on and on.
At what point does a spend-happy Democrat-leaning Congress protest its primary leader's outrageous borrowing and budget? When he reaches $5 trillion? $8 trillion? Is any Democrat politician concerned that such levels of escalating debt and spending will promote hyper-interest rates and a dead-in-the-water value of the dollar that leads other nations to no longer risk the purchase of our treasury bonds? Will the American public allow Washington to drive us to the poor house, as they prompt us to continue to chant, "Yes we can!" keep borrowing?
How can Obama and any congressional leaders tolerate for one moment during this recession any of the 9,000 earmarks, totaling $7.7 billion, in the $410 billion omnibus spending bill? How can they justify $1.8 million for swine odor control in Iowa or $200,000 for a tattoo removal program in Los Angeles? Have they all lost their fiscal minds?
So the big question is: How does Obama get away with racking up more expenses in his first 30 days in office than all the presidents combined had since the founding of our republic? Some say our recession warrants it. Others say his administration has played, or preyed, upon our economic woes. But I think it takes more than even a real depression to cause the type of unbridled spending we've seen over the last months. It takes the perfect economic and political storm, which is brewing right now over our nation, led by a president who has convinced the majority that "only government" is our savior.
Bernard Goldberg's "A Slobbering Love Affair" is a great book about the media's blind bias and infatuation with Obama, but his hypnotic effects permeate every stratum of society, from political corridors to public schools. Why? Because he's young, hip, cool, liberal and charismatic – and that's what sells today in America. Objectiveness and criticism flies right out the window at the mere mention of his name or any discussion of his excessive spending plans.
If G.W. Bush were still in office and made the exact same financial and legislative proposals, he would be publicly filleted and politically hung out on the wire for reckless monetary rule. Yet Obama's economic spending makes Bush's wartime bills look like chicken feed. But few Democratic leaders or pundits even question, let alone criticize, his fiscal leadership. Financial gurus who once railed Bush for excessive bailing now bow the knee at Obama's unbridled borrowing. Proof can be witnessed on television nearly every day, and last week was no exception.
On "Good Morning America" last Thursday, two of ABC's financial experts graded Obama's excessive borrowing and fiscal performance as a "B," while guest FOX financial expert Dave Ramsey rated it an "F." Despite the two "B" grades, one of the ABC financial experts quipped that one of the biggest problems with Obama's bailouts is that there is no real form of government accountability over the money pouring out of Washington. Yet they maintained their "B" grade for Obama's stewardship plan?
Here's an even better example. As Obama addressed Congress last Tuesday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi led the way in emotive spontaneous applause for her political hero. Pop-up Pelosi was bouncing up and down like Tigger on steroids, forcing Vice President Biden to rise "slowly" every time she jumped up, while trying to hide his frustration with her. Her eyes and facial expressions seemed almost giddy as she gazed at Obama, like a teenager infatuated with the popular high school jock.
As I watched this obsessive congressional circus, I asked myself, "Is this the type of objective bipartisan leadership we want running our government, leading our nation, and spending our money?"
If we are ever to restore the fiscal and leadership sanity to our government and economy, we need not reinvent the Great Depression wheel of Roosevelt's New Deal. We need to look to a time when Congress was more frugal in its spending and stabilized our government and economy. And in the past 100 years, one of the best examples of that occurred when Newt Gingrich led Congress in the mid-to-late '90s. I'm not justifying every financial move they made back then, but, despite losing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution by only one Senate vote, they still committed to spending caps and balancing the budget, which they did for four consecutive years for the first time since the 1920s.
The Congress of the 1990s steadied and strengthened the economy by following four priorities and principles, which, fascinating to note, are being turned on their heads at this moment by the present administration. As Newt noted in his excellent book, "Real Change," Congress' top priorities were to:
1. Cut taxes to increase economic growth and therefore increase revenues (unlike Obama's tax hikes, which will retard economic growth and depress revenues);
2. Set priorities, and increase spending in key areas while reducing it in nonessential areas (unlike Obama's fiscal priorities of "healthcare, energy and education," which are based not upon what is best for the economy, but what is reflective of typical partisan preferences and doing what is politically expedient);
3. Eliminate pork-barrel spending (unlike the 9,000 earmarks in the present $410 billion omnibus spending bill, which is nothing short of absolute economic ludicrousness, mismanagement and waste within our present crisis.);
4. Shift from expensive, wasteful systems to smarter spending; don't merely look at more inexpensive ways but productive ones too (unlike Obama's theory to spend our way to prosperity, which is sure way to sink America.)
Our government is hemorrhaging money. The nanny state is becoming the norm. Our founders are rolling in their graves. And at this very moment, Washington's credit-crazy and debt-accumulating addiction is dissolving our sovereignty like a sugar cube in coffee by handing our financial autonomy over to the power of other nations.
In other words, Rome is burning, and Caesar is stoking the fire!
Time is running out, but it's not too late to reverse Washington's fiscal frenzy. Don't just write, but hound your representatives to live and legislate by the preceding four proven priorities and principles of governmental and monetary prudence.
posted by shummer60 at Monday, March 02, 2009
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home