‘But here’s what I can tell you: After 18 months, I have never been more confident that our nation is headed in the right direction.’
New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly climbed to a nine-month high last week, yet another setback to the frail economic recovery.
Sigh. I’ve come to the rather grim conclusion that the economy won’t improve until we rid ourselves of this charlatan. Why? Contrary to B.O.’s assertions, it isn’t because of how deep the ditch was. It’s because no one with a business has any confidence in any of his decisions on the economy. The same goes for Nancy Pelosi, Tim Geithner, Harry Reid, etc.
We’re not headed in the right direction. In fact, I’m not sure we’re headed in any direction. What is the president/Congress doing to create jobs? Can anyone tell me? So far, we’ve had several different deficit-driving stimulus packages, which only propped up state governments, or hired more government employees, or paid some pension funds. None of that did anything to improve the economy, and anyone with an eighth grade education knew that it wouldn’t before it was attempted.
What else? We’ve passed healthcare legislation which the government admits won’t control costs, and is directly responsible for current premiums going up. The new financial regulation law will significantly increase the size of the federal government, and impact just about every financial transaction that anybody takes part in. Oh, and it does nothing to deal with HUD, Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac, all of which caused the housing bubble and started the domino effect of economic collapse.
Our economy isn’t in a malaise. It isn’t stuck. And there are no green shoots. It’s simply waiting. Waiting for the anti-business, anti-private property, pro-big government liberals to lose their control over the direction of this country. Unfortunately, while it waits, more small businesses shut their doors, more big businesses downsize, and more people lose their jobs.
Remember this come November: A vote for any democrat running for a seat in the House of Representatives is a vote for Nancy Pelosi to remain speaker of the house. Why is that a problem? Example:
‘There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,’ she said. ‘How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we’ve been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City.’
Looking into who’s making this a political issue? How could this not be a political issue? You have a group of muslims trying to build a mosque down the street from Ground Zero, when the majority of New Yorkers, and Americans, don’t want it. Hey Nancy, instead of calling for an investigation into how the opposition is being funded, why don’t you try calling for an investigation into the group that is funding the building of a 13 story “community center” on one of the most expensive pieces of real estate in the world.
I’m sorry, but the mosque isn’t about religious freedom or consitutional rights; it’s about common sense. And yes, I know that the left in this country lacks common sense, which is why they think the building of a mosque near Ground Zero should be celebrated, but investigating those that oppose it? Well I oppose it, so you can feel free to investigate me. I’m not being funded by anyone, but I’m more than happy to give five dollars to someone else to oppose it. Idiot.
Bigger picture: The Speaker of the House is calling for an investigation by the government into American citizens who oppose the building of a mosque. This should frighten you even more than the fact that she is second in line for the presidency.
Sherman’s March to the Sea? It appears that the Dems may attempt the legislative equivalent on their way out of Washington. Many are predicting the Dems will lose the House in this November’s election, which would rid us all of Nancy “I represent the views of .001% of America but dictate national policy” Pelosi and force the president’s move to the center, much like Clinton had to do after the 1994 mid-term elections (no, he wasn’t always a moderate).
But the Wall Street Journal reports that a dastardly plan is being hatched: pushing through legislation that the Dems don’t have the guts to push now, during the “lame-duck” period between the actual election and the transfer of power (a few months). Card-check, new taxes, additional environmental regulations? Would the House Dems really work so hard to force policies down the throats of Americans who don’t want them? Of course they would! See, for example, the healthcare bill.
Now, should we all panic like some are doing? I don’t think so. This “lame duck” session strategy really only applies to the House, because as we all know, any law requires ratification by both houses of Congress (see below). As long as the Republicans in the Senate remain committed to using the filibuster, as they have been so far, all of the unpopular laws passed by the House will die in the Senate. So, instead of taking Pelosi’s threats as a bad thing, remember that the only reason the lame-duck route is being thrown out there is because she’s very concerned about losing her majority in November.
It hasn’t been a good week so far for the President, and it’s only Tuesday. First, word leaks out that his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanual is quitting, due to conflicts with Obama’s “idealistic inner circle.” Yeah, get in line. Next, we find out that Barry’s budget director Peter Orszag will be exiting the Cabinet in July while leaving, as Ed Morrissey says, “a substantial legacy — as in a trillion-dollar-plus deficit and a $2.2 trillion math error.” Next, Obama and his Administration are blasted by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan for their strategy there, in a Rolling Stone article of all places.
While all of this is going on, the Pelosi-led House of Representatives won’t pass a 2010 budget–the first time since 1974. Why not? Because the Democrats in charge don’t have enough votes to pass a budget that increases both spending and taxes during an election year. Want more? Obama plans to sue the state of Arizona over its immigration law, while simultaneously refusing to secure the U.S.-Mexico border. Finally, the President’s ill-conceived, job-killing Gulf oil moratorium has been blocked by a Federal judge.
Amazingly, in light of everything going on, it’s admirable that he can still find time to golf.
BREAKING NEWS! In what has to be the “we told you so” news of the decade, it appears that everyone will likely lose their private healthcare plan under Obamacare. Also, the unelected Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, will get to use her swarm of unelected bureaucrats to determine what coverage we all get. I can hear it now: “I don’t understand…how could this have happened? Obama said we could keep our plan if we like it?! I feel like someone killed a kitten.” As the reader should be able to recognize by now, the only thing that irritates me more than this apparent revelation is the fact that IT’S NOT ACTUALLY BREAKING NEWS!!!!!
Hey New York Post, and every other complete and utter MORON who thought Obamacare was good for one, some, or all of the following reasons:
1. It will insure everyone, and that’s “fair;”
2. It will only raise taxes on those mean rich people;
3. Hey, we’re the only industrialized nation without single payer;
4. It’s better than the status quo;
5. There really is such a thing as a free lunch when the govt. pays for it; and/or
6. See No. 2…
…if you had pulled your head out of your People Magazine for literally two seconds during the healthcare debate, you would have realized that Obamacare actually required Health and Human Services to determine what type of insurance had to be provided to everybody, and at what cost.
Indeed, the draft regs envision more than half of all policies having to change within three years — an unmistakable break with President’s Obama’s oft-repeated promise, “If people like their insurance, they will be able to keep it.”
By now, I would hope that everyone would simply accept that what Obama says is true only if, by “true,” you mean the exact opposite. His “oft-repeated promise” doesn’t really matter when (a) he didn’t write (or read) the bill; and (b) the bill signed into law actually says the only plans that can be offered by private insurers must be approved by the government and must only cost what the government says they can cost. That’s what’s called nationalizing insurance companies without the government actually taking them over.
One must always view Obama’s domestic policies through the prism of Obama. With respect to healthcare, Barry repeatedly told supporters both before and during his campaign that he supported a single-payer system. Those that crafted the final bill–pelosi, reid, frank, etc.–have all said the same thing at one time or another. Finally, they’ve all admitted that the goal of the bill was to eventually get to single payer. There’s only one way that’s going to happen in this country: find some way to force private insurance companies out of business. How does that happen? Tell them they have to provide a fantastic insurance plan to every man, woman, and child, while telling them they can’t charge for it.
Apparently a group of evangelical leaders are in Washington D.C. meeting with Nancy Pelosi to discuss a position they share: amnesty for illegals. Some are confused about the pro-amnesty position of so-called “conservative” evangelicals, including one of my favorite bloggers Allahpundit at Hot Air. He states,
I’m fascinated by the prospect of this blowing up into a running doctrinal debate among prominent Christian conservatives, with border enforcers on one side and holier-than-thou amnesty shills on the other trying to the answer the WWJD question.
Except … are there any prominent Christian conservative pols who oppose a “path to citizenship”?
Well A.P., while I may not be prominent (yet), I am a Christian conservative who is against amnesty. There is some confusion out there about why Evangelicals would be pro-amnesty. I have two potential answers. First, the confusion can be found in the over-use of the term “Evangelical.” It has come to describe far too many Christian denominations. Second (and this answer/opinion will likely offend some) modern evangelicals are more interested in getting butts in the pews then they are delivering actual doctrine (that may offend someone). It’s no coincidence that the mega-church movement has largely marched in lock-step with the rise of modern evangelicals. Also, while evangelicals may be conservative politically, they are not necessarily conservative doctrinally.
Simply put, the Bible teaches us to follow the law of the person whom God has placed in a position of authority (with some obvious exceptions). While I really don’t like playing the “W.W.J.D.” game, I’m willing to bet a nickel on non-citizens obeying the law and having to stand in line. In any event, at the end of the day, Leith Anderson, president of the National Evangelical Association, has the same interest in the illegals that the politicians do: they constitute numbers.
Ah Nancy. This is not in keeping with what President Obama said to those graduating seniors in my hometown yesterday. Barry looked into the eyes of those young adults at Kalamazoo Central High School in Michigan, and told them,
Don’t make excuses. Take responsibility not just for your successes, but for your failures as well.
Today, while speaking to a crowd of progressives, Ms. Pelosi spent the majority of times blaming others for her failures.
“President Obama and the Democratic Caucus have saved this country from a financial crisis created under the Bush administration,” she said.
I beg to differ. First of all, when it comes to any of the questionable legislation of the past three years (and there’s been a lot), only TARP has ever been argued to have “rescued the country from a financial crisis.” While I don’t necessarily agree, since TARP didn’t even do what it was passed to do, many economists believe it helped to some unquantifiable extent. Bush signed TARP into law, so President Obama had nothing to do with it.
More importantly, it’s difficult to argue that President Obama and the Congressional Democrats have rescued this country from a financial crisis. Instead, the legislation passed by Barry and Nancy, such as the stimulus, have only increased the deficit, while unemployment went on to exceed 10%.
She blamed Republicans for deregulating big oil, assuring the receptive crowd that BP would be held accountable for its handling of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
What deregulation? I keep hearing that George Bush and Republicans deregulated the oil industry and because of said deregulation, we have the BP spill. What I never hear is what deregulation was ever actually passed. What I do hear a a lot about is along the lines of “America doesn’t require BP to use this certain piece of technology that country X does.” O.k., but that’s not deregulation. “Deregulation” means taking away regulations that used to exist. Congress does that, and they haven’t done it lately. Have government regulators failed to do their jobs because of their cozy relationships with big oil? Maybe. But the Democrats controlling Congress for the last two years of Bush’s presidency didn’t seem to think it was a problem, and no one has found it to be a problem during Obama’s presidency. Also, none of the above have ever said ‘no’ to a big oil campaign contribution. So Nancy, stop spinning lies about “deregulation” and point that bony finger right back at yourself.
More from the Speaker,
“No longer will recklessness on Wall Street be able to cause joblessness on Main Street,” she said. “No longer will those on Wall Street be able to privatize the gain and nationalize the risk, send the bill to the taxpayer if things don’t go their way,” she said.
Once again, Nancy is placing the blame on others that she should be, at least partially, directing at herself. Wall Street didn’t “privatize the gain and nationalize the risk,” Congress did. When Pelosi, Congress, and President Bush bailed out Wall Street, they allowed Wall Street to privatize the gain while nationalizing the risk. Also, the Bush Administration didn’t deregulate the big banks, President Clinton did that.
“It seems to me the choice is clear,” she said. “Democrats want to rein in Big Oil, the Republicans say no. Democrats wanted to rein in health insurance costs, the Republicans said no. The Democrats are reining in Big Banks and the Republicans are saying no.”
Nancy’s hands are as dirty as anyone’s. She had no interest in reining in big oil until the BP spill, although she had ample opportunity. So far, any efforts to “rein in big oil” so far have consisted of increasing their taxes; no additional regulations have been proposed. The health care bill doesn’t rein in health care costs. Instead, the CBO has concluded that they will only increase. Finally, the financial overhaul bill won’t rein in the big banks in any meaningful way.
Before you blame others Nancy, you should take a lesson from the late Michael Jackson, and look at the man in the mirror.