Glenn Reynolds said that the worse Barack Obama performed the blacker he would get. That is true, but it’s also true that the worse Obama performs the more his inner Karl Marx bleeds through and Obama’s real character is on full display right now.
And think for a moment about how Obama is framing his economic speeches. The core of what he’s trying to do, he said at Knox College in Illinois Wednesday, is not to make the economy better or create jobs. It’s to eliminate inequality.
So in many ways, the trends that I spoke about here in 2005 — eight years ago — the trend of a winner-take-all economy where a few are doing better and better and better, while everybody else just treads water — those trends have been made worse by the recession. And that’s a problem.
This growing inequality not just of result, inequality of opportunity — this growing inequality is not just morally wrong, it’s bad economics. Because when middle-class families have less to spend, guess what, businesses have fewer consumers . . .
And that’s why reversing these trends has to be Washington’s highest priority. (Applause.) It has to be Washington’s highest priority. (Applause.) It’s certainly my highest priority. (Applause.)
He throws in “inequality of opportunity,” but what Obama is really angry about is inequality of result. He’s mad that some people have more than others. That we’re not spreading the wealth around enough. That people are getting ahead even though you didn’t build that. Because at a certain point, you’ve earned enough money.
It’s the politics of resentment, touted by someone who harbors resentment. It’s at bottom the philosophy of, gimme what you got, you rich bastard.
It’s anger. And, as it expressed itself in the speech Wednesday, it wants payback.
If income inequality isn’t undone, blacks in this country will riot, rape, pillage and it’s George’s fault. Zimmerman, not Bush:
“If we don’t do anything, then growth will be slower than it should be. Unemployment will not go down as fast as it should. Income inequality will continue to rise,” he said. “That’s not a future that we should accept.”
A few days after the acquittal in the Trayvon Martin case prompted him to speak about being a black man in America, Mr. Obama said the country’s struggle over race would not be eased until the political process in Washington began addressing the fear of many people that financial stability is unattainable.
“Racial tensions won’t get better; they may get worse, because people will feel as if they’ve got to compete with some other group to get scraps from a shrinking pot,” Mr. Obama said. “If the economy is growing, everybody feels invested. Everybody feels as if we’re rolling in the same direction.”
And Obama wants that civil unrest in this country:
Stuart Varney: Obama used the term “inequality” more than he used the word “growth”. And this is a problem, according to Charles Payne.
Charles Payne: It is a problem. He talked about [income inequality] being morally wrong. You know, Stuart, if you and I entered this building and there were different rules for each of us, that would be morally wrong. But if I dropped out of high school and smoked weed all day and you worked your way through college and made more money than I did, that’s not inequality, that’s just.
Here’s what this president did: he tried to condemn capitalism. He tried to condemn success. He promotes mediocrity. And he’s making excuses for people to fail in this country, instead of being honest about it.
His phrases: “people who lost their homes through no fault of their own”, “people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own…” You know what: if I own a business and have 10 employees and things get bad, guess what? I’m not going to fire my best employees! Maybe you did lose your job because you weren’t up to snuff!
The bottom line is this: the president is pushing this agenda. That America is somehow a mean-spirited country without opportunity and we’re going backwards. When, in fact, every single year we get closer to that “more perfect union” that we strive for.
[On Obama’s prediction that income inequality will increase and “social tensions will rise as various groups fight to hold on to what they have”]
In my mind — and I hate to say this — I think President Obama would love to see civil unrest in this country very much like the Arab Spring. I think what he’s trying to do is to spark this revolution against the wealthy, against the “One Percent” who are holding us back, who are hoarding this money,
You know Democrats are trotting out this statistic about how much money the top one percent controlled in 1979 versus how much they control now. Well, it’s quadrupled, as if it’s the same group of people who’ve been greedy with money and greedy with opportunity.
You know who it is? It’s a kid like Lebron James, who was in the bottom one percent and is now in the top one percent. And his salary skews that top one percent to make it look 400 percent better. What that number shows is that opportunities for America… not the bad part of America, the good part of America.
It’s much easier to take from others than it is to work for something
Alinsky saw social tensions as a necessary circumstance to effective community organizing. Without anger, without the have-nots blaming the haves, it is harder to accumulate power. Alinsky considered the creation of social tensions, or the exploitation of them, as essential to move wealth and power from those who have it to those who don’t.
Once “social tensions” are stoked, all that is left is the tactical organization.
Ronald Reagan rallied Americans together. Obama knows only how to divide us.
A couple of notable things:
Income inequality
It is highly significant that Obama speaks of “income inequality” instead of “wealth inequality.” Income inequality isolates and protects the über-wealthy like the Pelosi’s, the Kerry’s the Kohl’s, the Blankfeins and the Kennedy’s who never have to work another day in their lives. You’re not going to touch their wealth. As always, those working the hardest will be made to bear the brunt of the burden.
Obama’s economic record absolutely sucks:
Median household income has generally trended lower but has plunged under Obama
And that’s the good news. The bad news is that median real household income is $2,718, or 5%, lower than the $54,218 median in June 2009 when the recession officially ended. Median incomes typically fall during recessions. But the striking fact of the Obama economy is that median real household income has fallen even during the recovery.
Obama discourages growth by discouraging work.
The food stamp and disability rolls have exploded, which reduces inequality but also reduces the incentive to work and rise on the economic ladder. This has contributed to a plunge in the share of Americans who are working—the labor participation rate—to 63.5% in June from 65.7% in June 2009. And don’t forget the Fed’s extraordinary monetary policy, which has done well by the rich who have assets but left the thrifty middle class and retirees earning pennies on their savings.
Why Obama can be nothing other than a failure
The core problem has been Mr. Obama’s focus on spreading the wealth rather than creating it.
Barack Obama is more interested in trophies and legacies than in success. He is more interested in Marxism than he is in the overall growth of the economy. No one may succeed until everyone can succeed.
The No Child Left Behind Economy.
In a nutshell, Barack Obama’s economic philosophy can be described this way:
Bob worked the hardest and has eight apples. Mary has three apples. Ed has one apple. Obama would take four apples from Bob and give one to Mary and three to Ed. Each now has four apples. After they have eaten them Bob doesn’t feel like working as hard since most of his will be taken away. Ed realizes he doesn’t need to work at all.
As Margaret Thatcher might say, eventually you run out of other people’s apples. Redistribution, no growth. No incentive.
So now as his Presidency crumbles around him Obama is scurrying around having himself and everyone around him blathering about “phony” scandals like the abuse of the IRS that now touches the Oval Office and the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi (where was Obama during this time?) and the guns he sent into Mexico and he is “pivoting” to the economy for the nineteenth time.
And we also learn that since Obama is President, we don’t need a Congress. He can do it all.
NYT: People questioned your legal and constitutional authority to do that unilaterally — to delay the employer mandate. Did you consult with your lawyer?
MR. OBAMA: Jackie, if you heard me on stage today, what I said was that I will seize any opportunity I can find to work with Congress to strengthen the middle class, improve their prospects, improve their security —
NYT: No, but specifically –
MR. OBAMA: — but where Congress is unwilling to act, I will take whatever administrative steps that I can in order to do right by the American people.
And if Congress thinks that what I’ve done is inappropriate or wrong in some fashion, they’re free to make that case. But there’s not an action that I take that you don’t have some folks in Congress who say that I’m usurping my authority. Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency. And I don’t think that’s a secret. But ultimately, I’m not concerned about their opinions — very few of them, by the way, are lawyers, much less constitutional lawyers.
So he doesn’t need Congress. He doesn’t need a lawyer. He doesn’t need a Constitution. This is the same Obama who once derided George Bush for not respecting the Constitution:
“I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution,” Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. “I believe in an attorney general who is actually the people’s lawyer, not the president’s lawyer.”
That statement is, as they say, rife with irony. After all, the end justifies the means, right?
And finally, let us recall more words of the One.
“I actually believe in redistribution.”
Obama is worth about $12 million. He will never in his life need to lift a finger but he will, as have past Presidents, become enormously wealthy. I am very curious to see how much of that he redistributes, as thus far he has redistributed nothing of his own outside of his usual tax obligations.
Do as I say and not as I do.
Under Barack Obama the United States is well on its way down the Grove Parc path, as I predicted.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Watching the president make the rounds on his “campaign”, I was struck by how he can disconnect himself from his “own” presidency. He’s standing off to the side saying look how bad this admin is. Look how they have failed you. Look at all the problems we have here at home as well as around the world.
I guess he’s hoping no one will remember that HE is the president??
I mean..it’s almost surreal in how comfortable he is standing there like it was 2008 lambasting the failures of his own gov/administration. Yes, Mr. President…you have failed. And doubling down on your failures isn’t going to stop the long, slow, finger dragging slide off the cliff.
I was never ashamed of my country until this arrogant marxist thug was re-elected. I can almost understand why, given the short attention span of our society, his fluff and media-driven propaganda campaign led to his election – but after 4 years of his disasterous policies, obvious marxism, pro-muslim and anti-American character, it was shocking to see so many incapable of recognizing what a horrible effect Obama and his policies have had on our nation. The fact that so many lazy, selfish, ignorant people spit upon the sacrifices our ancestors made to give us freedom is one of the most tragic events in our nation’s history.
I think more than anything….it’s his partisan divisiveness that gets to me — pitting groups of americans against each other and encouraging divisions between groups. Whether it be economic, political, etc. He’s running the presidency just like he was a junior senator from chicago. Oh…wait? He WAS a Jr Senator from Chicago.
this is the FLOPPING ACES RIGHT PLACE TO GET THE TRUTH NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH,
AND LIBS EAT YOUR HEART OUT, BECAUSE THESES ARE CONSERVATIVES,
THEY HAVE BRAINS AND THEY ARE NOT FOLLOWER, THEY ARE IN FRONT,
AND SMART ENOUGH TO HAVE FIGURE OBAMA FROM DAY ONE,
THEY SAW THE DESTRUCTIVE MANIPULATION OF THE LAW TO FIT HIS AGENDA,
ARROGANCE IS HIS WORSE BECAUSE HE THINK HE WILL GET AWAY WITH IT FOREVER, NO NOT WHEN HE DESCEND TO HELL TO GET HIS LEGACY,
The top 10% have done very well under Obama. I don’t think that is supposed to happen under Marxism.
Was Karl Marx for bailing out the banks? I know that wasn’t in my copy of Das Kapital.
Capitalists by definition are people who want to preserve and increase capital. Capitalists LOVE Obama for increasing their share of the wealth under his policies.
Do you see Wall Street going off to jail?
Mr. Obama is the pivot man alright. Right at the center of the cluster.
@john:
Under Marx as well as in the old USSR, some were always more equal than others.
@Dc:
And his motives are pure while yours are always evil and wrong.
drjohn
that’s why they are falling to pieces
and the other are too scare to talk and expose them,
and the REPUBLICANS ARE NOT SAYING TOO MUCH BECAUSE THEY MADE FRIEND WITH THE OTHER PARTY AND FEEL A BOND TO NOT EXPOSING THE CORRUPTION,
BUT THE YOUNGER ONE DON’T THINK OF THE BONDING THEY THINK OF THE CONSTITUTION
BEING STEPPED ON,
AND ARE LESS AFRAID TO TALK TO THE PEOPLE,
AS OPPOSE TO THE OLDER ONE
IOW, you white people are going to pay, and pay, and pay. Even if you can’t afford it.
Nevermind that the people (blacks) who will feel as if they’ve got to compete with “some other groups to get scraps from a shrinking pot” are not going to be competing with whites, but they’re going to be competing with the 11 million illegal that Obama was to make part of the legal work force. Un/under educated blacks competing with un/under educated people from south of our border.
Seems like a plan for racial strife to me.
THAT’S WHY OBAMA AND HOLDER MADE A BIG DEAL ABOUT
GEORGE ZIMMERMAN SHOOTING TO SAVE HIS LIFE,
they will try more gun repression for the good citizens so to have a power over them,
so to manipulate them,
you will need your weapons more as we go, be alert,
imagine if GEORGE DID NOT HAVE HIS GUN,
HE WOULD BE A DEAD MAN TODAY,
The pResident a failure?
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae277/RAPH6969/2013/47_zpseb331420.jpg
@Pete: Everything you said is completely correct. However, few people know the truth. The liberal media has completely ignored his continuous, unabated failures. Plus, there is also a portion of the United States that knows what he is doing but doesn’t care. As long as he share in their philosophical beliefs, failure is an acceptable outcome.
He was elected by blaming president Bush and continues to glean support by blaming others. Just look at his recent public address, before he went on his 7.6 million dollar vacation. He blamed the Replications for the problems with the country. Well Nr. President, you had both Houses, implemented all your policies, shoved the laws down our throats, raised our taxes, lowered our average income, increase governmental entitlements and decimated the economy. Good job!
Ride A Pale Horse
very good, it’s him no doubt about it,
thank you,
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone: Good observations, Bees.
Maybe Obama might give us peons a hint as to how to budget.
Our National Debt has been stuck at exactly $16,699,396,000,000.00 for 70 straight days.
This week’s numbers:
https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=w&fname=13072600.pdf
Compare with May 17th’s numbers:
https://fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=a&fname=13051700.pdf
If the debt had increased by even $30 million at any time during those 70 days, it would have exceeded the statutory limit.
We are being kept at just $25 million below the legal limit!
Magically, it hasn’t budged in 70 days.
But then Obama has magic beans, an electronic money creation device.
It doesn’t even bother to print up money, just SAYS we have that much more every day.
And in the last 70 days it has said we have $53.267 billion more.
These are called ”debt instruments.”
Don’t you wish you had some?
Our only explanation?
How long can this house of cards stand?
Nice illustration of our position under Obama:
http://normsonline.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/sleep.jpg?w=620
It depends on what he is trying to do. Let’s go back to his wanting a civilian security force he can control that is as large as the army. Why would he need it?
If you look at it from the point of view that he wants to destroy the USA, then all of the pieces are coming together, just like identical pieces came together in Germany, Russia, etc. This would make him a great success. Not bad for someone who isn’t even a legal citizen of the USA. I bet he sometimes laughs himself to sleep some nights, thinking what he got the people to do.
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can fool a democrat almost any time.
Wasn’t that the advertized goal (lie) of communism? Welcome to Animal Farm.
This is what BHO had to say about income equality in 2001. We should never forget that his core argument is that the white man owes the black man because of slavery. Unfortunately the YouTube clip on this has been pulled.
“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”
@john: Those that have adored obama, have given him money, agree with his philosophy and have kissed his ass have done very well. However even those (e.g., unions) that have fed from the trough are now getting a taste of the bitter truth and are having second thoughts.
@Tired American: – and that was just coming off his 100 million dollar vacation. if he isn’t on vacation he is on the campaign trail. In fact the entire 4 1/2 years all he has done is campaign and vacation. what a loser. (and I am being nice)
@Ditto: Eliminate inequality?? Fail. With the stock market at ALL TIME HIGHS AND UP OVER 80% since he took office the rich are getting richer—the poor, well you know. Add to this a R.E. market up 20% on average in last 18 months–wealthy have little to complain about. Of course they will, simply because they dislike Obama personally, and for the fact he’s a Dem.
The net worth of wealthy Americans has skyrocketed in last 18 months–They should THANK BHO (whether he’s responsible or not)-I only hope their philanthropic gene kicks in.
Semper Fi
FROM – http://doc.cat-v.org/economics/bar_stool_economics
Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers”, he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20”. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!” “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
Kauf Buch
yes you have explained it better,
and the ENVY AND GREED MADE THE LAST POINT,
THE RICH earn their money or inherit it, it’s okay,they own it,
I have witness much kindness from RICH PEOPLE, AND THEY DON’T BRAGG ABOUT IT,
BUT THE ABUSE OF LEADERS OF GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPTION TO THE MOST EXTREME,
AS IT SHOW NOW, THEY LITERALLY STEALING THE CITIZENS,,
BYE
@Richard Wheeler:
Especially Obama’s wealthy cronies like George Soros to name one. This is why most of us here on FA recognize that it is the elitist leadership of both parties, their WS and other backers, and the Crest of the country club that is Washington DC who have profited, while four out of five Americans are struggling to keep their head above water. They all lie, in order to play “the people” against each other and your Savior Obama is just as bad and corrupt as the rest of them.
@Ditto: #19
I wonder if obama has a title picked out for himself after he ascends to his thrown. He had to have a title and a logo (symbol) for himself when he became the president elect. At that moment, he became only the second person in history who has ever had their own logo (symbol).
http://lgstarr.blogspot.com/2010/11/which-two-people-in-history-had-their.html
@bwax: #20
This is obama’s ultimate redistribution plan.
That is how it works in Russia. The farmer takes their products to market, then waits at home to find out how much they are paid.
@Kauf Buch: #24
One reason for the difference in the lower and higher incomes is the way pay increases are figured. Most places give a percentage pay raise. The lower income employees receive a lower increase than the higher wage earners. With each pay raise, the gap between the earnings gets bigger.
One place I worked, the town’s general manager said that he started a policy that the total amount of the pay increase was divided by the number of employees, and we all received the same amount of increase. Since the general manager was the highest paid employee, he actually reduced the amount he would be getting in raises, because he thought it was the right way to do it.
@Ditto: Note 52% of Americans own stocks down from 67% in 2007. Elite of both parties have prospered. “Country Club” John Boehner playing over 125 rounds of golf a year and never losing his golden tan is my favorite Term limits would be a start.
Do you think Soros any worse than Koch Brothers and the G.D. lobbyists?
Who are you looking at for 2016 POTUS? Do you think BHO any worse than Mitt or Sarah? They have all gotten richer while the poor, well you know.
No, what is obvious is that you are a racist turd that hates having a black man as President! and that is a fact!
IT’S GOING TO TAKE A LONG ******* TIME TO DIG THIS COUNTRY OUT OF THE WHOLE WE’VE BEEN SICK IN SINCE BUSH CAME TO POWER. People don’t understand that. If Romney or McCain came into office they’d get hate too and people would complain they’re not doing anything. When in reality it’s going to take a long time. Sometimes things get worse before they get better.
That’s why this exist!
Remember when Benghazi happened and telling the truth about it would have interfered with Obama’s narrative that ”al Qaeda is on the run?”
Well, al Qaeda is NOT on the run!
As we knew.
But it is even worse…..
Ansar al Sharia (a part of an al Qaeda coalition) is even more entrenched in Libyan society now than it was the night the American Benghazi compound was attacked.
In fact, Ansar al Sharia Libya posted images and a video of its armed members manning checkpoints in Benghazi at the behest of the Libyan gov’t!
Ansar al Sharia members have been “manning checkpoints and guarding hospitals and other public buildings,” while receiving Libyan government payments.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ansar-al-sharia-mans-security-benghazi_742320.html
Obama lied and our people died.
His presidency is based on a foundation of lies, it cannot stand.
@ZaMan:
The Chicago Jesus said it would take only three years.
@Smorgasbord: #18
Don’t forget that a “civilian security force that is as large as the army” would be larger and more powerful that our entire military, within national borders. That is because, due to deployments and other normal maneuvers, most of our military forces are at present outside of our borders.
Of course, it makes sense. The President probably wants to keep the most dangerous potential terrorists as far away from our borders as he can…
@enchanted: #21
I have to laugh at the comments of the Obama supporters as they begin to wake up: “But…but he was supposed to do it to them, not us! Waaahhhhhh! Unfair!”
Heh-heh.
@Ditto: #26
And did you notice that Richard Wheeler only went back eighteen months? How are people doing compared to oh, say, five years ago or so? Have we caught back up yet?
@DrJohn#33/@ZaMan
Yea, and when THAT didn’t happen he said ‘he needed more time’….God help us!
@Kauf Buch#24 – Excellent! A lot of people ‘get it’… Sadly, there are a lot of people who will never ‘get it’…and there are a lot of reasons why…one of them may be ideology…they don’t ‘want’ to get it…there is such jealousy and animosity in this country and these ‘feelings’ these ’emotions’ have been put in the minds of people through indoctrination…
Fairness (not fair, not fair), equal outcomes, feelings, emotions, victimhood, keep hounding these home…and you have what we have today…the USA Land of the Victimhood…
So, the Left, the Progressives, Socialists (Democrats don’t exist anymore)…including our President have all but squashed the REAL meaning of America…why she is here, and why people have for years, flocked to her wanting to be an AMERICAN….it is because she is the LAND OF OPPORTUNITY….not the land of equal outcomes… life, in and of itself, comes with No Guarantees…
Political Parties and Governments cannot guarantee or give people…”riches”, pay their mortgage, Gas…Governments do not make people “rich”…God helps those who want to help themselves…
Wealthy People didn’t become wealthy by making others Poor….Oh, except when you are a politician that is….
@Petercat: The answer from my perspective is …. NO. Factoring in the rising costs of fuel, food, medical insurance, home owners insurances, automobile insurance and that even here in the LaLa land of Silicon Valley home values are still somewhat depressed. Not to mention my business has dropped off close to 35% from last year and that was down from the previous year. The only thing going up steadily is taxes but then that’s the price I pay for living in Commiefornia. For how much longer is the question.
@Petercat: #34
After I posted the below comment, I realized you were joking, but I don’t want to have wasted the time I spent writing it, so it is now officially for any liberal who might actually have that idea.
###################################
Let me see if I have your thinking correct. We pay BILLIONS of dollars to form, train, and equip a civilian security force in case of emergencies. This force will be under DIRECT command of the president. Assuming you trust YOUR president with this, will other presidents be as trustworthy not to use it for the wrong things? Are you willing to pay the extra billions of dollars per year for a civilian security force, and will you trust each president to only use them for national defense?
What about the National Guard. Will they just sit back and let the civilian security force do the fighting, or will they be a fallback plan?
obama wants a force that he can activate IMMEDIATELY, and control what they do from the beginning. He can’t do that with the National Guard. It was wisely set up so that each governor of each state had to activate it, then turn it over to the president. This is also the reason it took George Bush so long to go into Louisiana right after Hurricane Katrina. The democrat governor didn’t want Bush to get any credit for helping, and hoped the storm would hit the way it did. Bush couldn’t do anything until the governor let him.
Maybe, instead of forming a civilian security force, the law should be changed so that the president can activate the National Guard at any time. They are already trained and equipped. Would you be content with that? Would you trust YOUR president and other presidents with that authority? I won’t.
@FAITH7: #38
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who ‘get it’ in the form of welfare who will vote for anybody who promises them they will keep getting it.
@Smorgasbord: #40
“The President probably wants to keep the most dangerous potential terrorists as far away from our borders as he can…”
Yeah, that was sarcasm. So is this:
You really can’t blame the man for keeping our military overseas. I mean, it makes sense for him to keep as many armed and trained individuals who have sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic as far away as he can.
It’s a matter of personal safety.
Why is he keeping them overseas, anyway, since he won’t let them do their job effectively? Bengazi, ROE in Afghanistan, yada yada…
@Richard Wheeler: This sounds like a very similar discussion we had a while back when you told Smorg he made all that money on his 401K and it was pointed by both Mata and myself that you conveniently left out the first part of his presidency when the markets tumbled meaning much of what was gained was making up for losses already sustained under him. I believe Mata posted graphs and other evidence to support her argument.
@another vet:
Yeah, I recall that.
I’ve been pointing out how Obama’s electronically created ”money,” to the tune of $43 billion per month, has been keeping the USA from looking like the Detriot it really is.
Another thing about all that ”money” added to our pathetic economy each month is that keeping cash on the sidelines is no longer a viable solution for business.
Recall that, during Obama’s 1st term, over $1 trillion was being sidelined because there was no certainty or vibrancy in our economy.
business owners didn’t know what Obama would target to tax next.
Now, it has been years of little-to-no-interest rate on savings so, businesses began by consolidating their interests, buying off their own debts, merging with like-minded companies, updating their own technologies and swapping out full-timers for part-timers.
All that done what is left to do but invest?
They know which companies are good bets.
And the returns are much better than banks or bonds, certainly better than many municipal bonds.
California just gave me another reason to be glad I’m not there anymore: they are forcing all workers to have ”savings.”
Not any more real savings than the ”lockbox” Al Gore promised our Social Security was in, but a state operated, mandated extraction of 3% of all workers’ paycheck into an escrow account that CA will surely not touch between now and when those workers retire.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight!
@another vet: Quite simply Market approx 8500 when he assumes Presidency–goes down to 6700 in 6 months—currently approx 15,500. Do the numbers–up over 80% from inauguration, over 125% from 09 lows.
BTW A better argument could be made re R.E. 550,000 home on 1 jan 09 down from all time high of 700,000 summer of 07 goes down to 425,ooo winter of 2011. Currently back up about 20% from low to 500,000. Just #’s. Draw your own conclusions.
@Richard Wheeler: If I had a dollar and it depreciated to 60 cents and then went up to $1.08, do you think the return on my investment was 8% or 80%?
@Nan G: A shift from full time to more part time workers is viewed as a good thing by his supporters because it lowers the U-3 unemployment rate. Ditto for people dropping out of the workforce. There was a time people in this country would have viewed that with alarm. Not now because they are only concerned about politics, i.e. making Obama look good. Add in the increase in health insurance costs and medical expenses compliments of Obamacare and people are going to be getting hit hard on both ends. The people who will be getting hit the hardest will be the middle class, the very people the left claims to want to take care of. Quite ironic. As stated, it’s all about protecting the One and the Party.
And then we have this looming around the corner that everyone wants to ignore in order to keep the candy store open:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-28/35-facts-scare-baby-boomer
@another vet: Approx. corollary Dollar (8500 Dow) depreciates to 60 cents (6700 Dow) then goes up to $1.80 (15,500 current Dow) return is 80% on original Dollar. Agreed?
@Richard Wheeler: It depends on when you invested. If you invested when the Dow was 8,500 it would be an 80% growth rate. However, if you invested prior to October 9, 2007 (like most people in the markets probably have) it wouldn’t be. On October 9, 2007, the Dow closed at its pre-recession all-time high of 14,164.43. That’s a growth rate of around 10% over a little under 6 years (’07 to now) or less than 2% per year. Not a very good return unless you compare it to interest rates on savings or IRA’s.
@another vet: We spoke only of investing when Obama took office—up 80+%.