And they (you know who you are!!!) said that this blog had no influence!!!! Look at the earlier blog article this Monday, where I told you (in the P.S.) that Congress MUST be held to the "atutomatic cuts' in the "debt ceiling deal", or else we are endorsing the idea that Congress will NEVEER be hled to its promisses. Every member of Congress who wants to simply "undo" the "automatic cuts"---or any part of them--shoiuld simply be VOTED OUT OF OFFICE (if he or she does not resign: John McCain, this means YOU, in terms of a person who shold resign).
President Obama obviously agrees with me, because it was a major portion of his 5 minute speech on the failure of teh "supercommittee". In fact, it was the only part of teh speech taht made sense. Obama obviusly reads this bog (or has his speeches written by someone who does), as Obama has never made this kind of snense before. .It is, indeed, unconscionable to allow Congress to take an "off ramp" to get off of the highway that Congress itself set up (with grgreat fanfare from Congress AND Obama, and the great, accurate criticism from this blog).
The rest of President Obama's speech--the part which was not lifted right out of this blog--was the lusal class warfarem oartusab stuff from our Liar-in-Chief. Of course, you did have lthe hilarious COMIC RELIEF, as Obama ended with his usual statement that the American people expect the Federal Government to live within its means, just like they have to. President Obama has NEVER made ANY propsoal which would resutl in the Federal Goverfnment "living within its means", and has no intention of ever doing so (except as a LIE from our Liear-in-Chief), .
Then there is taht "tax the walthy" LIE. The present Obama/leftist Democrat talking point is taht this is all about the "99%" (of which I am a part) against the "1%" (our Liar-in-Cheif asserting that this is not "class warfare", as he refers to "fair share", meaningless as that phrase is, as he makes a prphet of Ayn Rand). Obama a, leftist Democrats and establishment GOP people seem to be headig right down teh road outlined some 60 years ago by Ayn Rand, trying to make 1% of the populiation SLAVES to support the remaining 99%. It is absurd.
How absurd is it? Look at the Obama "jobs bill" (which will not pass, althouygh the GOP may BETRAY every principle they purport to embrace and pass the DEFICT ADDING , fraudulent "payroll tax cut" and the DEFICIT ADDING unemployment benefit extension. That bill will ADD some 450 BILLINO dollars to THIS YEAR'S DEFICIT. If we raise taxes on the top 1%, we will--even if they PAY the taxes, and don't avoid them or suffer a loss of taxable revenue because of this policy--raise LESS than the amount Obama is increasing the deficit (literally, if Obama was not LYING about the 1%,as Obama is planning on incrreasing taxes on considerably more than that percentage, or considering the time value of money if you look at the $700 billion dollars that allegedly can be "raised" by eliminating the "Bush tax cuts" for people earning more than $200,000). But it is worse lthatn that. Obama is talking aoubt INCREASING teh deficit, with his jobs bill, over ONE YEAR. He is talking abut INCREASING TAXES over TEN YEARS. That means that people earining over $200,000 will be paying extra taxes OVER 7 YEARS just to finance ONE YEAR of Obama's "jobs bill" (including GIMMICKS like taht "payroll tax cut' WELFARE PAYMENT). Ayn Rand was right. That is SLAVERY, and the top 1% will not stand for it. One way or another they will not pay it. But it is still worse thatn that, as I have indicated. 450 BILLION DOLLARS in ONE YEAR has a much LARGER cost over ten years. Depending on you assumed inteerest rate (discount rate), that $450 BILLION dollars that Obama wants to add to the defict is worth AT LEAST that $700 billion he wants to "raise" from the wealthy over ten years. In other words, Obama really wants to USE the ENTIRE amount he says we should ADD to the taxes of teh "rich" to "pay for" jsut the Obama "jobs bill", WIHHOUT MAKING A DENT IN OUR CONTINUING DEFICT PROBLEM.
Do you need any further defiinition of "tax and spend". For Obama, and leftist Democrats, addtioinal taxes are to be SPENT on ADDITONAL DEFIICTS, without ever even attempting to "solve' our present debt/defict problem. That is what I mean by "absurd". Note that it si even worse with those fictional "spending cuts" over ten years. $450 BILLION dollars added to our DEBT now adds up to much more lthan that over ten years (since Obama has no intention of paying off the debt we NOW owe, meaning that the $450 billion dollars will added to the debt will STAY THERE the whole ten years, and more), But "spending cuts' in in thefuture can NEVER offsent SPENDING now. Again, we are dealing with the "time value" of money. You have to DISCOUNT a "spending cut" ten years from now to estimate how mcuh PREWESENT SPENDING it really "offsets". But, of course, it is really much worse than that. You also have to figure that the "future" "spending cut" MAY NEVER HAPPEN (what is it about this "move" to cancel the "automatic cuts" that you don't understand?). Thius, it is absurd, and a Democrat/GOP LIE to say that you can "pay for" PRESENT SPENDING with the same amount of "cuts" in the future. Even if you "discount" the amont of future "savings" to take care of the "time value of money" (which can only be an estimate), you still have the problem that the "cuts' MAY NEVER HAPPEN. It is all absurd. Spending, and deficit additons, NOW need to be offset with "cuts" (and/or revnue increases, except those would DESTROY the econmy) NOW--not ten years from now.
Those "atuomatic cuts"? Every time the media references them (at least almost every time), they LIE. Taht is because those "atutomatic cuts' are NOT NOW. They do not even START until 2013, and then they take place gradually over ten years. That $600 billin in "defense cuts". That is only 60 billion in 2013. That 600 billion in domestic spending cuts? That is only 60 billin in 2013. The whole 1.2 trillin in sPENDING CUTS that the "supercommittee" could not find (without large tax increases)? That involved LESS than 3% of TOTAL PROJECXTED SPENDING over the next ten years. What Obama and the Democrats are saying is that they could not cut 3% out of PROJECTED Federal Government spending over 10 years without undermining the proper role of the Federal Government in this country. That is absurd. Taht is unconscionalbe. That shows you exactly where Obama and the Democrats intend to take this country.
We NEED to cut $500 BILLIN from Federal Government spending THIS YEAR. The GOP has not even "cut" ONE DOLLAR from this year, and will not. In fact, the GOP will APPROVE spending that INCREASES from last year. But even the GOP nominal "cuts' (based on a reduction in the projected INCREASE in spending) of some 24 billino will be VASTLY EXCEEDED by the amonts that the GOP is likely to ADD to the deficit at the end (IF they even get the 24 billion in nominal "cuts", which is unlikely). The "payroll tax cut' fraud alone will ADD 100 BILLION to the deficit, which is more than the GOP has even said they are "cutting'. As stated, the entire Obama "jobs bill" amounts to 450 BILLION, , and it is absurd to suggest that ANY of that will be "apid for" (when we need ever dollar of "savings" AND extra revenue to "pay for" the government we now have, since we are NOWW borrowing 41 cents out of every dollar, meaning that we are already NOT PAYING FOR more than 40 percent of the Federal Goverment). Liar-in-Chief Obama says this is "living within our means'. I till you: the man is a comic genius.