In meeting with Republicans on Tuesday – Obama’s so-called “bipartisan” efforts – Obama told Republicans to keep politics out of the “Generational Theft Act of 2009” (as dubbed by Michelle Malkin).
Never mind, that the Act is ALL ABOUT POLITICS — an attempt to use a “crisis” in order to retain power for Dems for years ahead and giving favors back to Democrat/Liberal causes who got them all elected! (abortion/sex ed /STD groups, National Endowment for the Arts, ACORN, the list goes on and on)….
From Yahoo.com, Obama’s comments in the meeting with Republicans on Capitol Hill:
“I don’t expect one hundred percent agreement from my Republican colleagues,” Obama said as fevered political maneuvering on Capitol Hill contrasted with the euphoria of his inauguration there a week before. (SRT: GAG!)
“But I do hope that we can all put politics aside and do the American people’s business,” the president said in a time-honored appeal for Washington to overcome its bitter partisan divisions.
“Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”
Nah….no Democrat politics in this “use a crisis to gain votes” bill….
Of course, Obama doesn’t NEED Republicans to vote for the bill – he has majorities in both houses…but only needs them for POLITICAL reasons. Obama wants to be able to claim Republicans approved the bill and try to neutralize Republicans when the astronomical spending plan extends, or at the very least, doesn’t change the current recession and economic issues.
Other nuggets of faux honesty from the “Dear Leader” Obama while in the meeting. From Jake Tapper at ABC:
“I would love to not have to spend this money,” the president said, underlining that he has no interest in increasing the size of government just to increase the size of government.
Liar, liar, pants on fire….of course he doesn’t want to increase government for the heck of it, but he does want to increase government to keep and retain power by making the sheeple increasingly dependent upon the government monster. No liberal worth a dime has “not wanted to spend” OUR money! Again, Obama’s words from Tapper:
But, he said, he has talked to many economists who told him almost uniformly that they needed to get a stimulus bill up and running as soon as possible to avoid double-digit unemployment, thus they put together a package with both direct spending and tax cuts.
Always remembers that most of what Obama refers to as tax cuts are not tax cuts at all….they consist largely of credits to those who never paid the tax in the first place….you know…welfare…what did I say about dependency on government?
In addition, the the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released information that says only 21% of the SPENDING will enter the economy before 2010. Does that sound URGENT to you? Of course not.
In addition, as noted at Betsy’s Page, the spending that is supposed to “create” jobs is skewed towards those industries that have lower current unemployment, but not largely geared toward those areas with the most jobs lost:
Alan Reynolds (of Wall Street Journal) notes that the spending bill is skewed towards sectors of the economy that are not experiencing a downturn in the ways that the manufacturing sector is.
House Democrats propose to spend $550 billion of their two-year, $825 billion “stimulus bill” (the rest of it being tax cuts). Most of the spending is unlikely to be timely or temporary. Strangely, most of it is targeted toward sectors of the economy where unemployment is the lowest.
The December unemployment rate was only 2.3% for government workers and 3.8% in education and health. Unemployment rates in manufacturing and construction, by contrast, were 8.3% and 15.2% respectively. Yet 39% of the $550 billion in the bill would go to state and local governments. Another 17.3% would go to health and education — sectors where relatively secure government jobs are also prevalent.
If the intent of the plan is to alleviate unemployment, why spend over half of the money on sectors where unemployment is lowest? Another 22.5% of the $550 billion would go to social programs, such as expanding food stamps and extending benefits for the unemployed and subsidizing their health insurance.
After subtracting what House Democrats hope to spend on government payrolls, health, education and welfare, only a fifth of the original $550 billion is left for notoriously slow infrastructure projects, such as rebuilding highways and the electricity grid.
Quite a nice way to reward the government employees who vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats.
I’ll ask the same question as Reynolds again — If the intent of the plan is to alleviate unemployment and spur the economy, why spend over half of the money on sectors where unemployment is lowest?
Answer: Because Obama and Democrats are inserting POLITICS into the process and in doing so must create MANY government jobs and programs in attempting to retain their power.
Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party?
Another attempt by Obama to invoke conservative words while promoting his liberal/socialist “crisis opportunity”. His words to Republicans..he even invokes Reagan while trying to say spending works better than tax cuts:
Mentioning conservative economist Martin Feldstein, the chief economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan, Obama said this spending will have a more stimulative effect than will tax credits. For every dollar of spending, we get 1.5 dollars’ worth of stimulus, he said. For every dollar of tax cuts, we get 75 cents’ worth of stimulus.
Question for the Great Intelligent One:
If tax cuts don’t revive economies as abundantly as spending and you are using Reagan’s economic adviser as some sort of proof….then why did Reagan drastically cut taxes and, therefore,achieve a level of wealth creation, economic recovery and increases in the treasury at unprecedented levels? Obama, are you suggesting that this record Reagan recovery would have happened much faster with spending in place of those tax cuts? Your very own party, the Democrats, screamed at every turn when Reagan added to the deficit with spending.
This Obama argument is stupid at worst, misleading at best.
For many more Obama tidbits, read the rest of Jake Tapper’s review for the rest of the liberal/socialist defense by Obama all cloaked in conservative language.
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md.: “Mr. President, I probably come at this from a slightly different perspective. I remember when FDR beat Hoover in 1932. So I remember the Great Depression very well. I don’t remember any of the many government programs affecting the course of the Depression. Government programs didn’t work then, I don’t know why we think they would work now.Mr. President, I think our obsessive borrowing has fully mortgaged my kids and my grandkids. Now we’re working on mortgaging my two great-grandkids. Mr. President, I think it’s more than a little bit selfish to try to solve our economic problems which we created by burdening future generations yet to be born.” *
This prompted applause.
Amen…but odds are the spoken truth went right over the heads of Obama and his liberal counterparts.
Call your representative and let them know what you think of the bill and their (impending) vote….then start hounding your Senator and let them know you don’t want any part of this Theft Act unless it actually contains MOSTLY tax cuts for spurring recovery.
Filed under: Abortion, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Conservatism, Economic Stimulus, Economy, History, Liberalism, Nutroots, Politics, Progressives Ain't, Sex Ed/Abstinence, Socialism, Socialized Healthcare, Taxes, Welfare | Tagged: Barack Obama, buying votes, economic recovery, Generational Theft Act of 2009, government programs, Politics, pork, President Obama, Republicans, Ronald Reagan, spending, Stimulus Bill, tax cuts, unemployment, welfare |