Congress finally passed a temporary budget to get us through a few more weeks. As you probably know, the hold up was in funding FEMA. Some Conservatives wanted to offset funding emergencies with cuts in spending. Liberals argued that it wasn't fair to withhold much needed money to hurricane or tornado victims while Congress debated where the money should come from and which budgets to cut.
Surprisingly, I agreed with the liberals. Although I think government should have a limited role in our lives, we do need help during disasters. However, I also partially agree with conservatives in that we must have offsetting spending cuts to pay for it. The issue, however, is where we should cut our spending. Conservatives want to take money from green energy. I wouldn't mind cutting spending on that but this isn't the time or place. No, there is a much better area to cut spending to fund FEMA. The next time there is an emergency requiring federal assistance conservatives should ask the following question:
Do we provide billions in assistance to Americans in need or do we continue to provide the same amount to Pakistanis? I picked Pakistan as it's been in the news but you could substitute it for nearly any other country. Hell, we seem to give your money to just about everybody but you. If curious here is the listing of how much we gave other countries as of 2009: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s1296.pdf
Why do we give $7 million to Ireland? Nice people but let England take care of them. Does anybody know where Kyrgyzstan is for we gave that country $43 million! In 2009 we gave over $11 trillion to the Middle East including that $1.2 trillion to Pakistan and $8.6 trillion to Afghanistan plus another $1.7 trillion to Egypt. Then there was the $1.2 trillion the US gave to Columbia in 2009. Why? And on top of all this largess is the copious amounts of your hard earned money goes to the United Nations. In 2009 we gave $589 trillion to this institution which takes our money while it frequently denounces our country, our ideals
We can't continue to do both, not in the current economic situation. And to add insult to injury, far too many of the countries we help would cheer to see our citizens in trouble. In fact they would be more inclined to assist in the United States downfall then to lend us a helping hand. So the question is as simple as do we help our own citizens or do we help some other country while our citizens go in need?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Fair Share vs. Paris Hilton
I keep hearing the president tell us that the rich should pay their fair share to the government. But what is a fair "fair share" percentage? On the low end are the religious folks who say that their religion requires that they tithe so if 10% is enough for God it should be enough for Obama. On the hand, I have heard a number of progressive Democrats say that the rich should give half of all their income to the government.
The underlying thought is that the government can spend rich people's money better than they can. But is that true? Oh and by the way, for the do-gooders who think they are carrying on Robin Hood's job, they have it backwards. Robin Hood did not steal from the rich to give to the poor. No, he actually stole the unreasonable taxes collected by the government and returned that money to the hard working folks who paid those exorbitant taxes. It is Republicans who more truly follow in Robin Hoods footsteps, not Democrats.
Now back to who can better spend rich people's money. For example, a lot of people might say that the government would do a better job spending the money of trust fund kids. You know, those filthy rich offspring who got millions and millions simply by having the right daddy. But isn't every parent's dream to provide for their children and give them a better life than they had? Well yes, but still, they don't need that much money, do they? Besides, everyone knows that trust fund babies have a tendency to throw away their money on fancy cars, luxurious homes, expensive wines, lots of jewelry, not to forget roomfuls of clothes and rows and rows of shoes and purses. Simply disgraceful! Unless, of course, you make the clothes or sell the shoes or repair the cars or provide the furniture.
Almost as bad as the trust fund babies are the wives of the filthy rich men. The antics of these housewives are all over TV. If they were the original wife, people might begrudgingly acknowledge their help over the years, be it at the office or raising the children. Trophy wives, though, are worse than trust fund kids for they dislodged the first wife who was there during the hard times and can simply enjoy spending all of their new husband's money. And when they are not on a shopping spree they are at the salon or spa or gym.
Oh right, we're back to spending money on services and goods. All that spending, all that money, fueling the economy, wouldn't you say? And it goes to people who work and who in turn spend their earnings on more goods and services. But the government would give a large part of the wealthy's "fair share" to people who don't work. You know, that take from the rich and give to the poor that Stalin liked so much. Sorry but I prefer that trust fund babies and trophy wives keep their money and spend it however they wish, thank you very much.
Rich men's wives, however, also have a tendency to throw away a lot of money going to fancy dinners and balls given by other rich people. When you or I give a party we might ask a friend to bring a bottle of wine or perhaps a dessert. Rich folks think nothing in spending tens of thousands of dollars for a seat at a dinner party. Oh wait, typically all that money goes to a charity, doesn't it? And then in addition to the ten or twenty-five thousand dollar a plate dinner they then have auctions to raise millions of dollars for a hospital or charity. On a lesser scale are all the golf tournaments, walk-a-thons and other charity events held every weekend for every illness and charity. Take away their money and lots of charities will be underfunded which will negatively affect the research to find a cure for AIDs or breast cancer or cystic fibrosis.
Then there are the rich men, themselves; men who worked hard and provided a new or improved product or service that consumers wanted and paid money for, thereby making the men rich, not to mention his stockholders, investors and even his employees.
These rich guys probably don't spend as much money as their wives or children in buying things as they are too busy working. Yet at that office or factory, these men hire thousands and thousands of people who's salaries in turn buy more products and services. Plus rich guys help other businesses. In a good economy they invest their money not only back into their own company but also into other companies as stocks or bonds or venture capital. Money that again fuels the economy with new businesses meaning new jobs and opportunities for the rest of us.
But you don't hear any of this, do you? No, all Obama says is that the government should take more money from the rich, some hypothetical "fair share" that the Democrats will determine. And when they take that money then the rich will have less to spend on products and services provided by the middle class. All those little boutiques, restaurants, shops, beauty parlors, gyms etc. who employ us middle class and we in turn buy more things with the salaries earned from catering to the rich. But once Obama has this money, well, watch those businesses disappear.
Jobs will disappear when the rich have less money to spend yet, we know how well the government is at creating jobs. They did such a stellar job with the stimulus funds so expect the same failure when they have rich people's money. Just watch as our high unemployment rate jumps even higher if Obama gets his "fair share" tax hike.
And you explain to my niece or any other child with cystic fibrosis why we would raise less money if there's a "fair share" tax. That fewer people would attend our charity events if the wealthy are forced to pay higher taxes. Sorry kids, with less research money, finding a cure to allow CF patients to live past their mid 30s will just take longer now. All because Obama thinks the government deserves to have rich people's money.
So the next time Obama or any Democrat starts to argue about a "fair share" tax tell them that the rich, including Paris Hilton or any of the Housewives from wherever, help our economy and our charities better than the government ever could.
The underlying thought is that the government can spend rich people's money better than they can. But is that true? Oh and by the way, for the do-gooders who think they are carrying on Robin Hood's job, they have it backwards. Robin Hood did not steal from the rich to give to the poor. No, he actually stole the unreasonable taxes collected by the government and returned that money to the hard working folks who paid those exorbitant taxes. It is Republicans who more truly follow in Robin Hoods footsteps, not Democrats.
Now back to who can better spend rich people's money. For example, a lot of people might say that the government would do a better job spending the money of trust fund kids. You know, those filthy rich offspring who got millions and millions simply by having the right daddy. But isn't every parent's dream to provide for their children and give them a better life than they had? Well yes, but still, they don't need that much money, do they? Besides, everyone knows that trust fund babies have a tendency to throw away their money on fancy cars, luxurious homes, expensive wines, lots of jewelry, not to forget roomfuls of clothes and rows and rows of shoes and purses. Simply disgraceful! Unless, of course, you make the clothes or sell the shoes or repair the cars or provide the furniture.
Almost as bad as the trust fund babies are the wives of the filthy rich men. The antics of these housewives are all over TV. If they were the original wife, people might begrudgingly acknowledge their help over the years, be it at the office or raising the children. Trophy wives, though, are worse than trust fund kids for they dislodged the first wife who was there during the hard times and can simply enjoy spending all of their new husband's money. And when they are not on a shopping spree they are at the salon or spa or gym.
Oh right, we're back to spending money on services and goods. All that spending, all that money, fueling the economy, wouldn't you say? And it goes to people who work and who in turn spend their earnings on more goods and services. But the government would give a large part of the wealthy's "fair share" to people who don't work. You know, that take from the rich and give to the poor that Stalin liked so much. Sorry but I prefer that trust fund babies and trophy wives keep their money and spend it however they wish, thank you very much.
Rich men's wives, however, also have a tendency to throw away a lot of money going to fancy dinners and balls given by other rich people. When you or I give a party we might ask a friend to bring a bottle of wine or perhaps a dessert. Rich folks think nothing in spending tens of thousands of dollars for a seat at a dinner party. Oh wait, typically all that money goes to a charity, doesn't it? And then in addition to the ten or twenty-five thousand dollar a plate dinner they then have auctions to raise millions of dollars for a hospital or charity. On a lesser scale are all the golf tournaments, walk-a-thons and other charity events held every weekend for every illness and charity. Take away their money and lots of charities will be underfunded which will negatively affect the research to find a cure for AIDs or breast cancer or cystic fibrosis.
Then there are the rich men, themselves; men who worked hard and provided a new or improved product or service that consumers wanted and paid money for, thereby making the men rich, not to mention his stockholders, investors and even his employees.
These rich guys probably don't spend as much money as their wives or children in buying things as they are too busy working. Yet at that office or factory, these men hire thousands and thousands of people who's salaries in turn buy more products and services. Plus rich guys help other businesses. In a good economy they invest their money not only back into their own company but also into other companies as stocks or bonds or venture capital. Money that again fuels the economy with new businesses meaning new jobs and opportunities for the rest of us.
But you don't hear any of this, do you? No, all Obama says is that the government should take more money from the rich, some hypothetical "fair share" that the Democrats will determine. And when they take that money then the rich will have less to spend on products and services provided by the middle class. All those little boutiques, restaurants, shops, beauty parlors, gyms etc. who employ us middle class and we in turn buy more things with the salaries earned from catering to the rich. But once Obama has this money, well, watch those businesses disappear.
Jobs will disappear when the rich have less money to spend yet, we know how well the government is at creating jobs. They did such a stellar job with the stimulus funds so expect the same failure when they have rich people's money. Just watch as our high unemployment rate jumps even higher if Obama gets his "fair share" tax hike.
And you explain to my niece or any other child with cystic fibrosis why we would raise less money if there's a "fair share" tax. That fewer people would attend our charity events if the wealthy are forced to pay higher taxes. Sorry kids, with less research money, finding a cure to allow CF patients to live past their mid 30s will just take longer now. All because Obama thinks the government deserves to have rich people's money.
So the next time Obama or any Democrat starts to argue about a "fair share" tax tell them that the rich, including Paris Hilton or any of the Housewives from wherever, help our economy and our charities better than the government ever could.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Panic Time
The Obama presidency is imploding. You know it is bad when ultraliberal James Carville writes an OpEd telling Obama that it is time to panic. He's right. Just this week Obama's administration has been hit with a number of potential scandals and one very embarrassing special election. And now only 43 % approve how Obama is handling his job as president according to a recent CNN poll and over half of those polled (53%) disapprove. But it gets worse for when asked how Obama is handling the economy just 36% approve and a whopping 61% disapprove. Yup, it sure is time to panic.
How angry and fed up must people be when a predominantly Jewish population who has had a democrat Congressman since the 1920's bypassed the Jewish Democrat candidate for a Catholic Republican? Wow. But as Obama's old pastor once so famously said "the chickens have come home to roost". In this case, the Presidents favoritism of the Arab Middle East, mishandling of Israel and rude behavior during Netanyahu's last visit is resulting in the disenfranchising of the Jewish voters. And even as Obama is losing his core base his administration is being rocked with scandals.
Yesterday the Chicago Tribune entitled "Obama's Solyndra scandal reeks of the Chicago Way". And they should know. So what happened? Solyndra, a company making a new kind of solar panels, was the pride of Obama's green initiative. In spite of warnings or the fact that the Bush administration turned it down, Obama rushed to push through giving Solyndra $535 million of stimulus money in 2009. This week Solyndra declared bankruptcy.
They are calling this crony capitalism meaning Obama is helping businesses who have helped him. Yup, typical Chicago politics. No surprise what with Obama picking Bill Daley as his Chief of staff earlier this year. What else would you expect from a Daley who is pictured below having a laugh with our president and the infamous ex Governor Blagojevich.
A new name in the news is George Kaiser. He is the wealthiest man in Oklahoma, a contributor to Obama's campaign and a major investor in Solyndra. The White House logs shows that Kaiser was at the White House nearly 20 times in the month before receiving the stimulus money. And he wrote the contract such that investors will be paid first, then the government. I guess we can kiss that half a billion dollars goodbye.
How did they blow through $535 million in less than two years? It could be the new factory that opened a year ago, the one in which Obama toured and gave a speech. Or maybe it's the fact that they made solar panels at $6 a piece and according to multiple sources sold them for $3 a piece. Even lemonade stand Susie knows that it is stupid to sell at a loss.
No wonder our economy is getting worse under Obama. His economic team, starting with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is clueless. (Remember that Geithner had been president of the Federal Reserve Board of NY during the initial bank melt down in 08-09. Some Wall Street insiders blame Geithner for worsening the economic collapse due to what he did or didn't do to help salvage banks.)
Again, Carville is correct in demanding that Obama fire them all, starting with the Treasury Secretary. Meanwhile, Obama's new economic plan is simply stimulus junior with no new initiatives. As the saying goes, the definition of insanity is to do the same thing again and expect different results.
Then there are the growing scandals, old and new. There is Operation Fast and Furious, the gun running debacle. The ATF, again under Geithner, came up with the ludicrous idea to sell guns across the border in the hopes of tracking them and arresting Mexican criminals. Instead the guns have been used in multiple illegal incidents including the deadly shooting of one of our border patrol agent.
And the scandals keep on coming. Keep an eye on LightSquared another company who's top man was a major Obama contributor. As the Washington Post put it: "The deal has been criticized not only for its 'pay to play' appearance but also because the LightSquared network would interfere with the part of the wireless spectrum that is used by Global Positioning Systems (GPS)." Now a top level Air Force General is saying he was pressured by the White House to testify that this system would not interfere with the military's usage of the current GPS system, when, in fact, it could.
The week ended with the publication of a new "insider's" book: "Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President,” by journalist Ron Suskind. In addition to detailing infighting among top Obama advisors it also states that Obama's administration was an all men's club. At best women felt ignored and excluded, at worst, according to former White House communications director Anita Dunn, it was a hostile environment where women felt like "a piece of meat."
Today, many of the women are now backtracking on these remarks which is understandable, for in the book they claimed that the the men's club attitude and the instigator for the poor treatment of women came directly from the president. Oops, just one more Obama mis-step.
Last week was definitely not a good week for President Obama. I am also old enough to hear the echo of history as pundits and the media begin to ask what did Obama know about these scandals and when did he know it? To have this hit as he begins to campaign for the next election has even resulted in a few whispers of an acronym I haven't heard in 40 years. Can anyone say CREEP?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
How angry and fed up must people be when a predominantly Jewish population who has had a democrat Congressman since the 1920's bypassed the Jewish Democrat candidate for a Catholic Republican? Wow. But as Obama's old pastor once so famously said "the chickens have come home to roost". In this case, the Presidents favoritism of the Arab Middle East, mishandling of Israel and rude behavior during Netanyahu's last visit is resulting in the disenfranchising of the Jewish voters. And even as Obama is losing his core base his administration is being rocked with scandals.
Yesterday the Chicago Tribune entitled "Obama's Solyndra scandal reeks of the Chicago Way". And they should know. So what happened? Solyndra, a company making a new kind of solar panels, was the pride of Obama's green initiative. In spite of warnings or the fact that the Bush administration turned it down, Obama rushed to push through giving Solyndra $535 million of stimulus money in 2009. This week Solyndra declared bankruptcy.
They are calling this crony capitalism meaning Obama is helping businesses who have helped him. Yup, typical Chicago politics. No surprise what with Obama picking Bill Daley as his Chief of staff earlier this year. What else would you expect from a Daley who is pictured below having a laugh with our president and the infamous ex Governor Blagojevich.
A new name in the news is George Kaiser. He is the wealthiest man in Oklahoma, a contributor to Obama's campaign and a major investor in Solyndra. The White House logs shows that Kaiser was at the White House nearly 20 times in the month before receiving the stimulus money. And he wrote the contract such that investors will be paid first, then the government. I guess we can kiss that half a billion dollars goodbye.
How did they blow through $535 million in less than two years? It could be the new factory that opened a year ago, the one in which Obama toured and gave a speech. Or maybe it's the fact that they made solar panels at $6 a piece and according to multiple sources sold them for $3 a piece. Even lemonade stand Susie knows that it is stupid to sell at a loss.
No wonder our economy is getting worse under Obama. His economic team, starting with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is clueless. (Remember that Geithner had been president of the Federal Reserve Board of NY during the initial bank melt down in 08-09. Some Wall Street insiders blame Geithner for worsening the economic collapse due to what he did or didn't do to help salvage banks.)
Again, Carville is correct in demanding that Obama fire them all, starting with the Treasury Secretary. Meanwhile, Obama's new economic plan is simply stimulus junior with no new initiatives. As the saying goes, the definition of insanity is to do the same thing again and expect different results.
Then there are the growing scandals, old and new. There is Operation Fast and Furious, the gun running debacle. The ATF, again under Geithner, came up with the ludicrous idea to sell guns across the border in the hopes of tracking them and arresting Mexican criminals. Instead the guns have been used in multiple illegal incidents including the deadly shooting of one of our border patrol agent.
And the scandals keep on coming. Keep an eye on LightSquared another company who's top man was a major Obama contributor. As the Washington Post put it: "The deal has been criticized not only for its 'pay to play' appearance but also because the LightSquared network would interfere with the part of the wireless spectrum that is used by Global Positioning Systems (GPS)." Now a top level Air Force General is saying he was pressured by the White House to testify that this system would not interfere with the military's usage of the current GPS system, when, in fact, it could.
The week ended with the publication of a new "insider's" book: "Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President,” by journalist Ron Suskind. In addition to detailing infighting among top Obama advisors it also states that Obama's administration was an all men's club. At best women felt ignored and excluded, at worst, according to former White House communications director Anita Dunn, it was a hostile environment where women felt like "a piece of meat."
Today, many of the women are now backtracking on these remarks which is understandable, for in the book they claimed that the the men's club attitude and the instigator for the poor treatment of women came directly from the president. Oops, just one more Obama mis-step.
Last week was definitely not a good week for President Obama. I am also old enough to hear the echo of history as pundits and the media begin to ask what did Obama know about these scandals and when did he know it? To have this hit as he begins to campaign for the next election has even resulted in a few whispers of an acronym I haven't heard in 40 years. Can anyone say CREEP?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Thursday, September 8, 2011
My Fair American
There has been a lot of serious talk about the president's speech tonight. It seems as if both sides are getting a bit heated. And that union leader went too far in his condemnation of conservatives. Even ABC news went after Obama for not denouncing the guy. What we need is to ease up a bit though I doubt if Obama could do it. Actually if he were as politically smart as he thinks he is he would start the speech today with the Pledge of Allegiance. Can you imagine the visual impact that would have? But he would never do that, it's too politically charged what with that"God" reference.
Anyway, on a much lighter note, as I listened to pundits debate about tonight I was suddenly reminded of one of the lesser known songs from My Fair Lady. The song is called "Show Me" and is sung by a woman who, well, let the lyrics speak for themselves and for how I feel about Obama and his job speech tonight: "Words! Words! I'm so sick of words! First from him, now from you! Is that all you blighters can do? ... Make me no undying vow. Show me now! Sing me no song! Read me no rhyme! Don't waste my time, Show me! Don't talk of June, Don't talk of fall! Don't talk at all! Show me!
Never do I ever want to hear another word. There isn't one I haven't heard! Show me!" You see why I thought of this song?!
I took another look at My Fair Lady and found that there is a more famous song from this musical which also applies to America today. It is the very first song in the musical in which Henry Higgins deplores the way the common Englishmen speaks. Turn it around for Americans and the Hispanics and it hits the mark with such lines as: "An American's way of speaking absolutely classifies him. The moment he talks he makes some other American despise him. One common language I'm afraid we'll never get, Oh, why can't the American learn to set a good example to people whose English is painful to your ears... Why can't all Americans learn to speak?"
I also discovered a song that is a good fit for President Obama by just substituting the word "spent" for the word "dance" . Here is a brief look at those new lyrics: "I could have spent all night, I could have spent all night and still have spent some more." Yup sounds like our President!
Of course the fun song "With A Little Bit of Luck" is perfect just the way it is (if you're union or maybe a progressive, that is). The first few lines tell it all: "The Lord above gave man an arm of iron, So he could do his job and never shirk. The Lord gave man an arm of iron-but, With a little bit of luck, With a little bit of luck, Someone else'll do the blinkin' work!"
There are other songs but I'll include only one more from My Fair Lady. Simply change the premise to be a song sung by people who voted for Obama but are now disillusioned. With that in mind the first stanza is also perfect as it is and nothing needs to be change: " What a fool I was, what a dominated fool, to think that you were the earth and the sky, What a fool I was, What an elevated fool, What a mutton-headed dote was I! No, my reverberated friend, you are not the beginning and the end." Oh yes, a perfect fit indeed!
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Anyway, on a much lighter note, as I listened to pundits debate about tonight I was suddenly reminded of one of the lesser known songs from My Fair Lady. The song is called "Show Me" and is sung by a woman who, well, let the lyrics speak for themselves and for how I feel about Obama and his job speech tonight: "Words! Words! I'm so sick of words! First from him, now from you! Is that all you blighters can do? ... Make me no undying vow. Show me now! Sing me no song! Read me no rhyme! Don't waste my time, Show me! Don't talk of June, Don't talk of fall! Don't talk at all! Show me!
Never do I ever want to hear another word. There isn't one I haven't heard! Show me!" You see why I thought of this song?!
I took another look at My Fair Lady and found that there is a more famous song from this musical which also applies to America today. It is the very first song in the musical in which Henry Higgins deplores the way the common Englishmen speaks. Turn it around for Americans and the Hispanics and it hits the mark with such lines as: "An American's way of speaking absolutely classifies him. The moment he talks he makes some other American despise him. One common language I'm afraid we'll never get, Oh, why can't the American learn to set a good example to people whose English is painful to your ears... Why can't all Americans learn to speak?"
I also discovered a song that is a good fit for President Obama by just substituting the word "spent" for the word "dance" . Here is a brief look at those new lyrics: "I could have spent all night, I could have spent all night and still have spent some more." Yup sounds like our President!
Of course the fun song "With A Little Bit of Luck" is perfect just the way it is (if you're union or maybe a progressive, that is). The first few lines tell it all: "The Lord above gave man an arm of iron, So he could do his job and never shirk. The Lord gave man an arm of iron-but, With a little bit of luck, With a little bit of luck, Someone else'll do the blinkin' work!"
There are other songs but I'll include only one more from My Fair Lady. Simply change the premise to be a song sung by people who voted for Obama but are now disillusioned. With that in mind the first stanza is also perfect as it is and nothing needs to be change: " What a fool I was, what a dominated fool, to think that you were the earth and the sky, What a fool I was, What an elevated fool, What a mutton-headed dote was I! No, my reverberated friend, you are not the beginning and the end." Oh yes, a perfect fit indeed!
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Saturday, September 3, 2011
A Not So Big Job Plan
Happy Labor Day Weekend to all of you who actually have jobs. For those without one, well, help should be coming soon if you believe that Obama will be announcing a new jobs plan to the Joint Houses next week. It has to be really big, right? Why else would the President ask to speak to both Houses, something usually reserved for the annual State of the Union, declaring war or some other monumental reason.
Except I've noticed something about our president. He doesn't really care. Remember this is the man who voted "Present" while in the Senate rather than care one way or another about an issue. Sure he gives great speech but take away the teleprompter and his passion is as solid as the smoke from his cigarette, wavering then disappearing entirely. Good thing for us.
What of Obamacare you ask. Sure, he wanted the Health Care Plan but not enough to sit down and work out a plan or even give many guidelines to the Democratically controlled House and Senate. I actually think we have it wrong, it is not so much Obamacare as it is Pelosicare. She and the still, but not for long, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were the ones who pushed this abomination through their respective houses. Obama just sat in the Oval Office letting his minions do all his work for him then he took credit for it.
This upcoming "big" speech on jobs is a great example. First it is way over due and yet this spring he finally realizes that it is one of the most urgent issues he has. Then he decides that this urgent issue isn't so urgent that it couldn't wait until everyone comes back from the August vacation. But wait. Now it so urgent again that it just had to be given next Wednesday. Oh, the Republicans have a presidential debate at the Reagan Library planned for months on that same date? Gee what a coincident. (Wink wink, nudge, nudge, let's mess with the Republicans).
Except for the first time in history, that I know of, a president's request to meet with both Houses was turned down. Some say that Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House was disrespectful to the office of the presidency. Maybe. But it could also be said that Obama was using his office to play politics and simply screw the Republicans.
It says something about the people around Obama that no one had the foresight to wonder what would be the ramifications if Boehner said no.
Is Obama and his team that arrogant or simply that stupid? So when Boehner did say no, they were basically left with their asses hanging in the wind and after much sputtering and posturing, the President's team said he would give his speech on Thursday, not Wednesday. In this game of political chicken it was Obama who blinked.
The thing is, the President could have won that petty fight if he really cared. If he showed he passionately believed he had to give that speech on Tues, not Weds and stood up to Boehner with the full force of the presidency behind him then Beohner would have acquiesced . But he didn't really care. It was just a political game and Obama was the one who caved once again.
Or Obama could have said he would give the speech on Wednesday but from the Oval Office not in front of Congress. Of course the problem with that idea is that this time around what he says isn't going to be as important as how it will look to the public. Obama wants to be seen angrily lecturing Republicans, looking all stern while he shakes his finger as they must sit there. On the other hand, he wants to camera to show the enthusiastic Democrats leaping to their feet applauding their wonderful leader. It's all a show folks.
When I said what he will say won't matter, well, funny thing about that speech. I just saw a clip where it showed Obama early this summer saying he would give a "specific plan" on creating new jobs, then mid summer he said he will present a plan but no more promises of details and now it is being touted as an outline with the full plan and details to be determined after he talks to the people. Wait a minute. Didn't he just have that bus tour to do exactly that? So now this "big" speech is nothing more than a campaign stunt; to screw the Republicans, make them look bad and himself good and then to set himself up for more campaign tours under the auspices of discussing jobs. Yup it's nothing but Obama once again stating one big "present" with nothing solid behind it at all. Personally I'm not even going to bother to tune in - turns out that by moving the speech to Thursday it is now up against the kickoff NFL season. Go Packers!
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Except I've noticed something about our president. He doesn't really care. Remember this is the man who voted "Present" while in the Senate rather than care one way or another about an issue. Sure he gives great speech but take away the teleprompter and his passion is as solid as the smoke from his cigarette, wavering then disappearing entirely. Good thing for us.
What of Obamacare you ask. Sure, he wanted the Health Care Plan but not enough to sit down and work out a plan or even give many guidelines to the Democratically controlled House and Senate. I actually think we have it wrong, it is not so much Obamacare as it is Pelosicare. She and the still, but not for long, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were the ones who pushed this abomination through their respective houses. Obama just sat in the Oval Office letting his minions do all his work for him then he took credit for it.
This upcoming "big" speech on jobs is a great example. First it is way over due and yet this spring he finally realizes that it is one of the most urgent issues he has. Then he decides that this urgent issue isn't so urgent that it couldn't wait until everyone comes back from the August vacation. But wait. Now it so urgent again that it just had to be given next Wednesday. Oh, the Republicans have a presidential debate at the Reagan Library planned for months on that same date? Gee what a coincident. (Wink wink, nudge, nudge, let's mess with the Republicans).
Except for the first time in history, that I know of, a president's request to meet with both Houses was turned down. Some say that Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House was disrespectful to the office of the presidency. Maybe. But it could also be said that Obama was using his office to play politics and simply screw the Republicans.
It says something about the people around Obama that no one had the foresight to wonder what would be the ramifications if Boehner said no.
Is Obama and his team that arrogant or simply that stupid? So when Boehner did say no, they were basically left with their asses hanging in the wind and after much sputtering and posturing, the President's team said he would give his speech on Thursday, not Wednesday. In this game of political chicken it was Obama who blinked.
The thing is, the President could have won that petty fight if he really cared. If he showed he passionately believed he had to give that speech on Tues, not Weds and stood up to Boehner with the full force of the presidency behind him then Beohner would have acquiesced . But he didn't really care. It was just a political game and Obama was the one who caved once again.
Or Obama could have said he would give the speech on Wednesday but from the Oval Office not in front of Congress. Of course the problem with that idea is that this time around what he says isn't going to be as important as how it will look to the public. Obama wants to be seen angrily lecturing Republicans, looking all stern while he shakes his finger as they must sit there. On the other hand, he wants to camera to show the enthusiastic Democrats leaping to their feet applauding their wonderful leader. It's all a show folks.
When I said what he will say won't matter, well, funny thing about that speech. I just saw a clip where it showed Obama early this summer saying he would give a "specific plan" on creating new jobs, then mid summer he said he will present a plan but no more promises of details and now it is being touted as an outline with the full plan and details to be determined after he talks to the people. Wait a minute. Didn't he just have that bus tour to do exactly that? So now this "big" speech is nothing more than a campaign stunt; to screw the Republicans, make them look bad and himself good and then to set himself up for more campaign tours under the auspices of discussing jobs. Yup it's nothing but Obama once again stating one big "present" with nothing solid behind it at all. Personally I'm not even going to bother to tune in - turns out that by moving the speech to Thursday it is now up against the kickoff NFL season. Go Packers!
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)