Did he leave in the middle of that speech – or did he just never show up? In a rerun of his campaign speeches, Obama again started up the class warfare argument. And again, reason is absent.
I listened to the President present his budget reform “bill” promising to cut $4T from the deficit. I listened, and I listened. And I listened some more. There must have been some mistake, because I think all I heard were re-runs of his old speeches. Actually, it sounded like something he said in 2007, during his campaign. Lots of promises, no details, and paying for it with fantasies.
Just kidding. I listened to his speech and got all choked up – it was beautiful. His concern for my well being was overwhelming. In fact, his speech was so good, that if I owned a baseball team, I would borrow his speech writer. My first speech would go something like this:
“I have good news! Next year we will be an excellent team. Odds are we will win the division title and the World Series. Here’s my plan. We will get Ryan Howard, Albert Pujolz, Derrick Jeter, Buster Posey and Josh Hamilton among others, along with Tim Lincecum, Cliff Lee, Matt Cain and Clayton Kershaw. They will all work for $50,000 per year plus expenses, so we can afford to sell hot dogs for a buck and beer for 75 cents.”
Of course, I would have a better chance of buying a baseball team and accomplishing that than Obama’s “plan” will accomplish bringing down the deficit – or even getting approved.
Greg Sargent (Washington Post) said “Obama made the moral case for what it means to be a Democrat.” Yes he did. Of course, there is very little reasonable moral case for being a democrat, just the normal delivery of promises, which Obama does very well.
Jonathan Cohn (New Republic) said “That was a clear, unambiguous, morally grounded defense of the welfare state…” Yep. That it was. Especially grounded. I guess he is finally showing his true colors. Here comes the “fundamental change” he promised. Time for the Feds to hire some guys to go out and find some working stiffs, take their money, and then find someone sitting on a couch and give it to him.
Get the picture? If you are a responsible person and work hard, get out your wallet.
Just a couple of questions for the Commander in Speech.
-Have you been reading anything lately (besides the teleprompter) about “your” health care bill? It is going to raise costs, not lower them. And that doesn’t even take into account gross governmental inefficiencies inherent to Federal Programs.
-What do you think “rich” people do with their money? Stick it under their mattresses where it can rot? Or do they invest in things that create jobs? Your assumption is that the income of the rich will remain the same if you take their money. Doesn’t work that way. Take their money and their revenues and the government’s will drop - and so will the number of jobs.
- Let’s see, because of our unsustainable debt, you want to “invest” money we don’t have in green jobs and technology, which has proven so far to be an absolute bust. Do you know something we don’t know? Is there a magic wind or solar bullet we don’t know about? Nice! Please let us know what it is, though. Some people I know (not me) are skeptical. They think you are being frivolous “investing” in unproven technologies, sending our jobs overseas and making our businesses sluggish and unresponsive. If we just knew what magical energy solutions you have in mind we could plan our dwindling reserves to last until just before we go over the cliff, or at least before a gallon of gas costs $8.00.
Okay, back to the here and now. Here’s a concrete example of Obama’s ideological, ironical idiocy. He wants to eliminate charitable deductions for wealthy taxpayers. If Ralph is in the 35% tax bracket and donates $100,000 to a charitable organization, he saves $35,000, so his net cost is $65,000. If you eliminate the deduction and therefore Ralph doesn’t donate, the charitable organization gets zero, Ralph has $65,000 more spendable money to buy whatever wealthy people buy, and the government has an extra $35,000 to do social work. Sounds like a loss of $65,000 to social causes. Factor in the Feds propensity for inefficiency and that $35,000 will turn into $10,000. That’s a net loss of $90,000 for social causes. And mean, wealthy Ralph has an extra $65,000 to spend.
No, Mr. President, you are wrong. It is a spending problem. Decrease spending, decrease taxes, and revenues will increase. If you are worried about our children inheriting a world not as good as ours, you are correct to worry. With your plan we will have a windmill in the back yard so we can operate a clock radio cheaply and solar panels which will generate enough electricity to run the rest of the house - as long as we can afford the panels. And, of course, there will be a horse in the barn to pull the car. But wait- doesn’t a horses flatulence, contribute to global warming?
Paul Ryan’s plan may have some deficiencies and some pain, but it will work. Your plan, along with lots of pain, will not work. Go read Ryan’s plan again (did you actually read it yet?). If you are serious about reducing the debt, start with his plan, not yours.