About Me

Name: Bill Crawford
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

Iran And Isreal

Posted by Bill Crawford on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 11:48:37 PM
This is where I sometimes think that this White House has gone from willful ignorance to 'what the hell are they smoking?'
 
Iran has used the Obama tenure as a rest and refresh time for their nuclear program. We've been nice to them, and they've stuck it to us every time somebody from there has a press conference. We're trying to get the UN to agree on sanctions. Really tough ones this time (where have I hear that before?). China is exploring helping us this time, instead of declaring a priori that there was a Security Council veto coming.
 
In the meantime, Isreal didn't even bother coming to the recent nuclear summit. They got treated like trash at the White House a month ago. Obama doesn't like what Netenyahu is saying? You can stay here at the White House if you want, but find your own dinner. When can you remember that one happening? To anyone at the White House? Not even with LBJ, folks.
 
Now comes the sad and the scary. Iran is set to go nuclear THIS YEAR. That's 2010, folks. They have had over 8000 centrifuges going for over a year now, according to Iranian Presidential proclamation. That is beyond sanctions. It has reached the point where a military solution may well be the only option left. The sad part? There are people in this administartion who are against sanctions because it would hurt the Iranian people, and not just the political leadership. D-uh! What do you all think the point is?
 
Now the scary part: there are trial balloons being floated about regarding approaching the Iranian proliferation problem by tacitly creating a moral equivalence between Iran and Isreal both having nuclear weapons! Equivalent? The only stable ally in the region for the last half century and the country that broke into our embassy and held everybody hostage for a well over a year?
 
What kind of medication do you have to mix to make sense of that one?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You Want Change? Now You're Getting A Reaction.

Posted by Bill Crawford on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 11:33:33 PM
It's really not very complicated. Look at the number of Democrats deciding not to run this year, for "personal reasons". Bart Stupak is only the most recent prominent one.
 
Poor Bart held out like a good poker player, keeping his pro-life, blue dog coalition in the center of the poker table for weeks. He got rolled by the White House, parlaying the interesting concept that an Executive order could somehow countermand Congressional law. Yeah, that'll survive a legal challenge. Maybe he wanted to vote for the health care package all along. At any rate, when he went home to Michigan, his constituents let him have it- not so much for voting for it, but for spending his whole year on it when unemployment there is over 14%.
 
That's what happens when you ignore the will of the people. I think Obama realized early on that he could not turn the American supertanker left that quickly, and he seems to be settling for tying the wheel hard over and knotting it up so his successors can't turn it back.
 
Many moons ago, someone asked Jacob Javits why he didn't vote for the death penalty, when so many of his constituents wanted it. His reply was quite intelligent: "I am a Senator. I am not a vote comptometer". In a representative republic, he may be right. His problem was, three years later, he was no longer a Senator.
 
It took the media almost a year to get wind of the ungodly number of royally pi**ed off people hanging around in the center of the country at present, where the national news feeds only show sporadically. I can tell they know now, because they take pains to deride the stupid rubes with the flags in each hand, when they aren't making fun of them.
 
Obama has been warned that another 1994 is coming, maybe worse. He is convinced that it won't be that bad, because of his affability and charm with the swing voters.
 
Right. Every body has their rose colored glasses. Bob Novak's dead-on district by district prognostications went awry in 2006, when he predicted an even split between parties in both houses of Congress. You could read the hopefulness in his statements. I smelled worse that summer, and it was frustrating not to be able to do anything about it.
 
So the White House will put on a hopeful face, raise money and make speeches in the vulnerable districts. And come November, they will get their butts caned in a way that will stupify the uninitiated.
 
That's what happens when you govern like that, and spend our money the way you are. There will be hell to pay, and our used car salesman President can't stop it. Maybe nobody can.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Value Added Tax

Posted by Bill Crawford on Saturday, April 10, 2010 8:59:35 PM
The VAT has been proposed here for years as an alternative to the income tax. Let us be clear here: the way it is being trial ballooned now is in addition to the income tax structure.
 
It is said that a 10% VAT would raise a trillion dollars a year for the federal budget. Obama is going to need the money. History has shown on almost every level that soaking the rich is a fool's game, because there aren't enough of them, and they more capable of positioning themselves for tax abatement.
 
Are we all clear on what "value added" means? Look at Europe. The tax (presently over 20% on most of the continent) is charged at evry pass of the creation of a good or service. If you buy a tire, it is passed on the raw material, the manufacturer, the deliverer and the dealer that installs them. Think of what kind of inflation that will cause.
 
And unless all these people are voted out soon, this will be dumped on us with another one of this President's 'aw shucks, I didn't have a choice' speeches.
 
It's your wallet, folks. In a land where we can't seem to float much below 10% unemployment, the IRS is now hiring and training thousands. Thousands. Margaret Thatcher once said that the problem with socialism is that eventually it runs out of other people's money.
 
It's obvious that nobody in this White House thinks they are near that point yet.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Massachusetts, The Health Care State

Posted by Bill Crawford on Saturday, April 10, 2010 8:46:15 PM
Just as New York City under Fiorella LaGuardia was widely regarded as the laboratory for the New Deal in the early 1930's, the Bay State and it's experiment with universal health care was touted as a springboard for ObamaCare this year.
 
I realize it was done in part to taunt former Governor Mitt Romney, but it was done primarily to pose it as some sort of bipartisan exercise.
 
Well, health care premiums are rising faster in Ted Kennedy's backyard than anywhere else in the country. The insurance industry is being told that they have to accept the new applicants, even those with pre-existing conditions, without raising rates any further. This is the Obama/ Emanuel business model that is going to be forced on all of us: if you can't figure out how to stay in business under our new rules, then go into another business. Oh, and I guess the government will have to pick up the slack.
 
And, after ten years of that, if there are no insurance companies left, we have what kind of health care here? Gosh, you mean single payer? We didn't WANT to do that!
 
Obama never tired of saying that "you can keep your insurance and your doctor under this new plan". Again, that wasn't the point. The way they have set it up, will they want to keep you?
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The New Taxes Are Coming

Posted by Bill Crawford on Thursday, April 01, 2010 9:09:00 PM
I've told you that Obama is the opposite of Reagan: Reagan used tax cuts to starve the government beast, and forced the spending to keep pace, or suffer the deficits.
 
Obama is feeding the beast as fast as he can, and will be proposing a few ways to raise taxes to make it somehow more responsible.
 
The immediate one is his cap and trade proposal- declaring hydrocarbons a regulatable substance, and then taxing corporations who deal in them, who can then tade credits or pass the tax to the consumer. If it doesn't get voted into policy (and they don't have the votes now), he will do it by Executive writ through the EPA. The purpose of this is to force conservation by raising the price of energy. This will not be cheap. I'm talking well over $1000 extra per year, per family.
 
Then they are musing about VAT (value added tax). This is an onerous tax that is done at every level of economic activity. Vat gets tacked on to raw material, again at manufacture, at shipping, storage and retail. This is how they do it in Europe, and it works.
 
The point is, this White House is now budgeted to run $1.5 trillion deficits in perpetuity, and the plan to close this comes from your pockets, folks.
 
The people that support him on this don't seem to care- they think we should all sacrifice more to conserve and run a proper government. I'll venture that few of them have working memories of the last two years of Jimmy Carter.
 
I do. This will not stand.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Life After ObamaCare

Posted by Bill Crawford on Thursday, April 01, 2010 8:56:26 PM
The first take was simple sarcasm: we all woke up the next morning and the world was still here. I have trouble believing that the purporters of this one actually were falling for the logical fallacy of summing a policy that takes ten years to fully take effect as somehow peachy keen because the sun came up the next day. I think it was borne more of a cavalier, in your face celebration.
 
Obama has been playing this up with enthusiasm, in his unification health care rally tour. This is while he lambastes his critics for being overheated, and asking all of us to "tone it down". Thanks, Dad. I'll think about it.
 
All the while, the next step is being implemented. His critics are unhinged. Hell, they are borderline violent and possibly dangerous. We have seen the new terrorists, and they are....why, I guess they are the Tea Party! But of course.
 
It doesn't stop there. The Tea Partiers are also racist. In a world full of cell phone cameras, there still is no video, but we have the testimony of a few prominent members of the Black Caucus, and their word is gold.
 
I've been to a few Tea Party rallies, folks. Most of them are well dressed. Those that aren't are that way because they are coming from a job. They don't leave any litter. They are polite. I'm haviing trouble equating the people Ive seen there with an urgent need to call Homeland Security.
 
So here we are. I know what's coming with this. The people who like it don't believe me. So, we'll start with Election Day.
 
The Democrats were going to have problems anyway. Many of the seats they barely took to make their majorities in '06 and '08 are coming around for revote. They have more vulnerable seats than the Republicans this November, and their numbers get worse in '12.
 
Their arrogance with all this will come back to smack them in the butt. They all know it's coming. Obama still thinks he can talk his way into a better path, being the used car salesman that he is.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Myths About Health Care

Posted by Bill Crawford on Saturday, March 20, 2010 8:43:43 AM
Myth #1: "You can keep your doctor, and your health plan". Thanks, Mr. President. The question is, after you set new mandates and price controls on them, will they want to keep us? Or will they look at a world in which they have their premiums set by Uncle Sam, but are now required to insure children to age 26 and take on all pre-existing conditions and decide they are out of the business- leaving us to pick which option?
 
Myth #2: This is not a universal health care program. The hell it isn't. Obama has been saying publicly for a decade now that it would be hard to wean us all off employer based health care, and there would be a "transition period". Welcome to the transition, folks. If the government sets the rules and the prices, they can push anybody out of the market they choose to. It's just a matter of time.
 
Myth #3: It will reduce the deficit. This is a possibility, but only if all the patients in America follow along and allow the industry to enact a draconian world of rationing. Think about it, folks: we're already having trouble graduating doctors. Technology is expensive. And we're about to insure over 30 million new patients, many of whom can't afford it. In that world, if the costs are going down, where is that coming from?
 
Myth #4: There is no wording about abortion in this bill. That is the tag line answer that was attempted at the raucous town hall meetings last year. That is the point, though: if Roe V. Wade is set Federal law, then if there is no wording in the bill, then nothing stands in the way of taxpayer subsidy, no? That is why Rep. Stupak wanted an amendment to the bill, and wants one today.
 
Myth #5: Whatever deals are left in the bill are for all the states. So the Louisiana Purchase is still there because it applies to Hawaii, too? How? And if student loans are a funtion of the federal government now, when one bank in North Dakota is allowed to breach that monopoly, that is a service to which other states? By the way, if federalizing that program saves us $19B in stipends, that is now included in the CBO health care "deficit reduction" estimates?
 
Myth #6: Republicans don't want reform, they want the status quo. Obama loves this one, and evidently his chosen audiences do, too. Unfortunately, most of usconservatives, if asked, can reel off about five or six things we would like to see reform include, and acknowledging that we have the best health care system on the planet does not necessarily entail that it has no problems to address.
 
Myth #7: We tried getting bi-partisan support, but they didn't want to help. You know, I was awake earlier this year, when Obama met with the GOP caucus. He listened to their ideas, and at the end, he said: "But remember, we won the election". And soon after that, it became obvious that not only were none of them going to be included, their amendments would not be allowed, either.
 
What is happening this weekend is the end result of the most arrogant use of parliamentary power I've ever seen here in my lifetime. I understand I am a partisan, but I am a historian as well. There will be a response to all this, one way or another, and it certainly doesn't end here. I will watch the events of Sunday carefully, and we will move on.
 
But I can tell you right now, there will be hell to pay for all this.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

We Know Better Than The Proletariat

Posted by Bill Crawford on Saturday, March 20, 2010 8:14:50 AM
I have deliberately avoided this forum, despite my stratosperic anxiety, because I wanted to get as accurate as possible before I started shooting into the crowd. In the process of doing so, I managed to bump into the NY Times people on a few occasions last week. They never seem to dissappoint.
 
Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist (I so love that moniker) thinks that there are myths to dispel about this great health care reform movement. The first myth is that Obama is trying to take over one sixth of the economy. The second is that the proposal doesn't control costs. The third is that it is fiscally irresponsible, which he uses the CBO estiates to counter.
 
I'll refer to the first two in my own mythical tome, but the third is amateur city: Paul knows the CBO follows the procedures set by it's Congressional masters. They raise their objections when they think those procedures are bogus. This may be why they used the word "preliminary" in the CBO report as prominently as they did here. I know that word is in Mr. Krugman's vocabulary.
 
Paul closes with "This is a reasonable, responsible plan. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise". This is the same tabloid that told me in 2003 that if I believed in the Iraq War, I "needed therapy". No kidding.
 
Never mind all that. A few days later, the Time's token conservative, David Brooks pines in. David evidently feels that, unlike himself, both sides have Obama all wrong. "Obama aways has been a center-left pragmatic reformer", and we can't see that because "We live in a country in which many people live in information cocoons in which they talk to members of their own party and read blogs of their own sect". I see. Earth to David: I get to see the other side of things every time I open an urban newspaper or national newsweekly. I  have my pick of network channels where the editorial stylings of Williams and Couric flower daily for me.
 
He has more, though. "In a sensible country, people would see Obama as a president trying to define a modern brand of moderate progressivisim" (italics mine). This is the NY Times ambassador to conservatism, folks.
 
The only difference between the Old Grey Lady and the Village Voice is their operating budget. And from the looks of it, the boys in the Subscription Dept. on 43rd Street are doing their best to level that playing field.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Health Care As The New Paradigm

Posted by Bill Crawford on Monday, March 01, 2010 8:00:13 AM
I've been through most of the West Wing version of health care reform, and it isn't much different than the Senate version. The worst parts of all three get boiled down to two major concepts.
 
The less scary one is that the HIPA (medical privacy) laws become a joke as soon as this passes. The health care "Administrators" from each state, as well as the designated federal ones (whatever thousand people THAT may be) all have unlimited access to your complete medical records as well as your IRS tax database, in order to properly answer any eligibity questions.
 
You got that? Yes, I said that was the less scary part. Here is where it really hits the road. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution (regulating interstate commerce) is where this governmemt has gone in the last century to justify doing things that would make a 19th century American blanch. Speaking as somebody who understands that the 20th century forced some adjustments on all of us, I still don't appreciate the appetite the Progressive movement here has for more federal power.
 
If you think it through, the government holding all of us to a mandate to spend our own money to buy something we don't all agree to carries the Commerce Clause  power to a whole new level. This is not a new 'tax'. It is a mandate to buy insurance, and we simply have to find the money in our wallets, or pay the prescribed penalties (which are different in each bill).
 
This power would allow Washington D.C. to do just about anything it wanted. For these reasons alone, this must be stopped. If it gets passed, these people need to be thrown out this November, and their replacements must scrap it.
 
Obama talked about being a "transformational" President in at least two interviews I heard on the campaign trail. Was I the only one listening?
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hitch A Ride Into Space?

Posted by Bill Crawford on Friday, February 26, 2010 12:19:35 PM
Here's a wild one: since the world basically went on a tear after 9/11, and passengers started jumping AT airborne miscreants instead of hiding from them, the airline industry is obviously not the primary target for terrorism worldwide.
 
What is? Trains. Easy to board, little or no security, lots of people crammed in, captive audience. Just what a good Jihadist needs. Ask the folks in the London subways. Or Madrid.
 
So we are forking over stimulus money to create or improve high speed train facilities in a few key areas of the country. Amtrak loses money in almost every division, and we subsidize it. So what? The Japanese bullet trains are still subsidized by the government, too.
 
But what gets cut off at the knees? The entire magilla for the Aries project at NASA. There are four more Shuttle missions scheduled, and there was going to be a few years where we had to hitch rides into orbit- probably from the Soviets, at $50 mil per man, per ride.
 
Now, it is open ended. We will hitch rides until somebody goes to D.C., grabs Obama by one ear and pulls him out of the Oval Office.
 
Don't kid yourself, folks. When he loses the election in 2012, the following January, he will not be doing a smooth transition thing. He and his Chicago Mafia will have to go to rehab to get the power trip out of their systems. It will not be pretty.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Toyota On The Carpet

Posted by Bill Crawford on Friday, February 26, 2010 11:41:29 AM
There is an undercurrent building about how indicative it is of this Administration's anti-business sentiments that they are hauling Toyota into Congress over a product recall, albeit a large one.
 
Here is one for all of you: I agree with what they are doing to Toyota right now. And it's not because I think they should get targeted treatment because while they build cras here, the profits go overseas. It is because the deeper I dig into this, the more it smells that the metal shim that was passed out as the fix for all the acceleration problems may well be a cover. They may have a software problem they have yet to isolate. If that is the case, and they are allowing drivers to walk away from a recall "fix" when the problem hasn't been, there will be hell to pay.
 
I didn't see that one coming because, while I wouldn't buy a Toyota over a Ford right now, I still have a hell of a lot of respect for the company. If this sham has any truth to it, it is one of two possibilities:
 
One, it is a new problem for them, either technically or having happened in American plants, and they are facing new corporate paradigms.
 
Two, it is how they deal with things when they happen in Japan, and aren't prepared for an American reaction.
 
We shall see.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Day Of Reckoning For Obama

Posted by Bill Crawford on Wednesday, February 24, 2010 10:13:01 PM
Thursday's televised health care summit is the end all for Obama Care. The point is, he is supposed to meet with Boehner and his friends, show the world on live TV that they are intractable and beyond negotiations and use them as a pinada to pin the blame on when they are forced to go for the "nuclear option" and pass off the Bill in the Senate as a budget reconciliation- requiring a simple 51 vote majority.
 
The interesting part is, Obama and his minions knew what the GOP wanted out of health care reform in January when he "met" with them then. The White House uses that meeting as evidence that they tried to bring the Republicans in from the beginning. I remember the meeting- do you? Obama listened, told them "but we won the election", and blew them off.
 
Now Obama can't find the votes in his own party to make this happen, and he has to change the rules. He is NOT starting over tomorrow. He is there to communicate his new Bill to the enraptured Republican audience. If they object, the White has HAS to go nuclear.
 
Well, I've got two things to say to that. One, all but the true Obama acolytes have come to realize that Barrack's line of s""t comes so thick and fast at times that it takes your breath away.
 
Second, if they DO pass this with budget rules, their exit from the majority will not just be ensured in numbers this November, they will soon learn what the worst part of "lame duck" means. They won't be able to do anything but flag resolutions this Summer.
 
I've long sinced quit musing that that can't be that dense. They are. This is nuts.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

We Have Seen The Enemy, And They Is:

Posted by Bill Crawford on Wednesday, February 24, 2010 10:02:07 PM
....Our political opponents, natch!
 
Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? The left were more than happy to parlay Tim McVeigh into a right wing loony. Clinton made a point (and then backed off) to connect him to talk radio. These are the same people who report on an Army Major with a Muslim name, the word "jihad" on his business cards walk in a shoot up a room full of soldiers and they trip all over themselves to omit his religion.
 
Well, anyway, Janet Napolitano, our erstwhile Homeland Security pro, says that "Terrorists who are US citizens or are in the country illegally and pplot against the U.S. just as big of a concern as international terrorists." The press is doing their level best to connect this statement to Joe Stack, the moron who flew a plane into an IRS building.
 
The connection they are trying to make is the congruity sequence: terrorists, therefore right wing, therefore teabaggers.
 
It's never enough for these people to disagree politcally. They insist in personalizing, in demonizing. Cheney was evil. Bush was stupid. Bush Sr. was out of touch. Reagan napped his was through the Presidency.
 
I'm a conservative. I've seen it so many times it's old news to me. I am craven. I am a chicken hawk. I am a homophobe. I don't have the intelligence to vote in my own best interests.
 
And after all that, they complain about the incivility. Read the left wing blogs, folks. Dredge through Kos and MoveOn, and then compare it to TownHall. Good luck finding parity.
 
The civility will return, but only after the left wing Baby Boomers push up daisies. Not one day before.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Joe Biden Needs A Moment In The Mirror

Posted by Bill Crawford on Wednesday, February 24, 2010 9:49:30 PM
So Richard Cheney decided to have another go at the stupid, stupid paths this Administration has chosen to fight the war on- er, sorry- the overseas contingency operation (or whatever it's called now).
 
The gruff gus of an ex-VP surely has a bug up some buttinskies on Pennsylvania Avenue, because they frantically scheduled sanguine Joe to go on TWO weekend talkies. One before Cheney, one immediately afterward.
 
Here's where I have my first problem: Joe tells me that Cheney doesn't have the "right" to "write his own history". My problem is that I was conscious and listening when Biden got on TV two weeks ago and touted the ongoing stability in Iraq as "one of the Obama administration's greatest accomplishments". You got that right- after the Senators from Delaware and Illinois both voted against the 2006 surge, both pronounced the plan a failure in advance, and THEN Joe came out with his brilliant plan to carve Iraq into three tribal zones. I'm assuming that Halliburton was going to provide the tour buses to make that happen.
 
Obama has an advantage in Washington. He is new enough where some people still question whether he is as full of crap as he sounds. The beltway people gave up on that question for Biden when he crashed and burned running for President in '88.
 
So I ask again, Obama. Is the plan with Joe to just let him keep talking, and nobody has a sock ready? That's the plan?
 
Editor's note: I was left to referring to Cheney as "Richard" because the moronic catch-all editor software that buttresses this site yanks you if you use the word "D**K. I know at DailyKos they are free to refer to the lower end of his alimentary canal at will, so I may be filing a protest here.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Agnostic" On New Taxes

Posted by Bill Crawford on Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:28:46 AM
You got that right, ladies and gents. Obama was asked about his OMB projections on deficit and debt ($1.5 trillion a year into eternity), and he said thus: "What I want to do is be completely agnostic in terms of solutions".
 
Bush laid out $800 billion in TARP payments in September 2008- in response to a situation that both sides regarded as monstrous: a market so volatile that lenders were in the process of freezing the credit market. Not slowing, folks- freezing it until further notice. Even this conservative made a note of the moment as one of necessary government action.
 
This TARP payment ballooned the 2008 deficit from @$400 billion to $1.3 trillion. Obama is running with that as a baseline, and touting the deficit level as something he "inherited from Bush". I won't bother going into what a lying sack of s**t you have to be to believe yourself saying something like that.
 
I'll instead go into what I would do to announce that I was now to make it clear that I was trying to renormalize: over $500 billion of the "stimulus" money has not been spent yet- give it back. Second, return all the repaid TARP money to the Treasury.
 
That is a trillion dollars left unspent. Adjusting the 2009 budget with that would do amazing things to all the small companies out there hoarding cash because they don't know what kind of regulatory world they will be living in next year.
 
Obama won't do that. He has created a baseline where he needs (at least) an extra trillion a year to get by, and is posing a special "bi-partisan" commission to address the issue. What will come out of that, folks, is whatever may be left in your wallet.
 
Reagan cut taxes in 1981, and used the deficits to drag Congress into cutting spending. Obama is raising spending, and is about to drop the hammer on taxes to make up the difference.
 
I raised my fears about Obama during the presidential campaign in 2008. I was laughed at. I guessed at them again after he took office, and I was told I wasn't "seeing the bigger picture".
 
Well I think by now I can see the whole picture, and it scares the hell out of me. The only good thing he is doing for himself right now is that he is acting like such a hallucinatory nightmare with the budget that I am temporarily distracted to what a disaster the man is on the War on Terrorism.
 
So, the promise to not raise taxes on anybody below $250k in income, "not one thin dime" is about to be history. It's your money, folks. If you hold it open and he takes it, it's your own damned fault.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12…67891011121314…3233Next »