President Barack Obama is using Keynesian Economics.
What are Keynesian Economics?
Many Politicians argue to increasing taxes in order to promote government spending so that they can give it to the lower class so they can reinvest it in Private Corporations. This is using Keynesian Economics.
Why Keynesian Economics will not work!
1. The rich (Business owners & other employers) already pay the majority of the taxes.
2. Where is the government getting the funds for the stimulus plan? TAXES, thus they are taking money from the economy to inject right back into it! REMEMBER, GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE THEIR CUT OF THE TAXES ASWELL!
3. What is the point of the stimulus plan? To invest the money back into the business owner from the consumer.
THIS IS SOCIALISM!
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
DHS adds "Right-Wing Extremists" to the DHS Watch List.
Thanks to Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security (Janet Napolitano), Freedom of Speech took another hit this week, the day before the tax day tea parties.
Personally am very angered, just for having a political opinion they add you to a watch list as a suspected terrorist. Wake up America! This is another step towards a fascist state.
If you:
Oppose restriction on firearms
Oppose lax immigration
Oppose continuation of free trade agreements
Oppose same-sex marriage
Have paranoia of foreign regimes
Fear Communist regimes
Oppose one world government
Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world
Resent the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India
Or are a War Veteran.
You may be labeled as a "Right-Wing Extremist", I am suprised the Left-Wings have not been added as suspected terrorists because they have created more anti-Bush protests than the rights would care to do about Obama, not to mention their's often led to violence.
Michael Savage, A talk-radio conservative show host is fighting this, He has filed a lawsuit against this.
America, you are being led to a slaughter and half of you don't notice this, If you let this happen you risk your Freedom of Speech.
Why this matters to Liberals: The last time when there was a Liberal president that failed with our nation (Carter), A great man came out of it. (Ronald Reagan) Do you want to be targeted next time? This Blog has a correct title. "Those you don't know history are deemed to repeat it"
-Daniel Phipps
Personally am very angered, just for having a political opinion they add you to a watch list as a suspected terrorist. Wake up America! This is another step towards a fascist state.
If you:
Oppose restriction on firearms
Oppose lax immigration
Oppose continuation of free trade agreements
Oppose same-sex marriage
Have paranoia of foreign regimes
Fear Communist regimes
Oppose one world government
Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world
Resent the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India
Or are a War Veteran.
You may be labeled as a "Right-Wing Extremist", I am suprised the Left-Wings have not been added as suspected terrorists because they have created more anti-Bush protests than the rights would care to do about Obama, not to mention their's often led to violence.
Michael Savage, A talk-radio conservative show host is fighting this, He has filed a lawsuit against this.
America, you are being led to a slaughter and half of you don't notice this, If you let this happen you risk your Freedom of Speech.
Why this matters to Liberals: The last time when there was a Liberal president that failed with our nation (Carter), A great man came out of it. (Ronald Reagan) Do you want to be targeted next time? This Blog has a correct title. "Those you don't know history are deemed to repeat it"
-Daniel Phipps
Friday, April 10, 2009
Obama Thinks GM Bankruptcy Best Option
http://www.thestreet.com/print/story/10480341.html
Joseph Woelfel
04/01/09 - 01:02 AM EDT
A quick, negotiated bankruptcy is the most likely way for General Motors(GM Quote) to restructure and become a competitive automaker, President Barack Obama believes, according to a published report.
The president also is prepared to let Chrysler go bankrupt and be sold off piece by piece if the automaker can't form an alliance with Italy's Fiat, Bloomberg reports, citing members of Congress who were briefed on the GM and Chrysler situation.
GM has been given 60 days to fix its debt-ridden balance sheet, cut billions in costs and take other steps to transform itself into a profitable entity.
Chrysler must make the same cuts as GM, and sign up Fiat as a partner, all in 30 days.
The "quick and surgical" bankruptcy for GM that the Obama administration said was an option appears to be inevitable, said the members of Congress and two other people familiar with the matter, Bloomberg reports. Obama personally signed off on asking GM CEO Rick Wagoner to step down, Bloomberg reports.
A White House official said Obama's position hasn't changed. "He remains committed to a significant restructuring without a bankruptcy if at all possible," the official said, according to Bloomberg.
Reuters also reports Obama's thinking on the crisis facing GM hasn't changed since Monday.
"Nothing has changed on this," a senior administration official said when asked about the Bloomberg report, according toReuters. "This report is not accurate."
"Our focus is on accelerating the speed of our operational restructuring and reducing liabilities and debt on the balance sheet," GM spokeswoman Renee Rashid-Merem said in an e-mail to Bloomberg. "GM will take whatever steps are necessary to successfully restructure our company."
Reuters, meanwhile, reports a possible bankruptcy plan being discussed for General Motors includes quickly forming a new company of the automaker's most profitable parts, while a group of other units would remain under bankruptcy protection for a longer period.
Joseph Woelfel
04/01/09 - 01:02 AM EDT
A quick, negotiated bankruptcy is the most likely way for General Motors(GM Quote) to restructure and become a competitive automaker, President Barack Obama believes, according to a published report.
The president also is prepared to let Chrysler go bankrupt and be sold off piece by piece if the automaker can't form an alliance with Italy's Fiat, Bloomberg reports, citing members of Congress who were briefed on the GM and Chrysler situation.
GM has been given 60 days to fix its debt-ridden balance sheet, cut billions in costs and take other steps to transform itself into a profitable entity.
Chrysler must make the same cuts as GM, and sign up Fiat as a partner, all in 30 days.
The "quick and surgical" bankruptcy for GM that the Obama administration said was an option appears to be inevitable, said the members of Congress and two other people familiar with the matter, Bloomberg reports. Obama personally signed off on asking GM CEO Rick Wagoner to step down, Bloomberg reports.
A White House official said Obama's position hasn't changed. "He remains committed to a significant restructuring without a bankruptcy if at all possible," the official said, according to Bloomberg.
Reuters also reports Obama's thinking on the crisis facing GM hasn't changed since Monday.
"Nothing has changed on this," a senior administration official said when asked about the Bloomberg report, according toReuters. "This report is not accurate."
"Our focus is on accelerating the speed of our operational restructuring and reducing liabilities and debt on the balance sheet," GM spokeswoman Renee Rashid-Merem said in an e-mail to Bloomberg. "GM will take whatever steps are necessary to successfully restructure our company."
Reuters, meanwhile, reports a possible bankruptcy plan being discussed for General Motors includes quickly forming a new company of the automaker's most profitable parts, while a group of other units would remain under bankruptcy protection for a longer period.
Repeating History...
How is history repeating itself? Glenn Beck discussed this in his popular Fox News show today.
Is anybody else feeling paranoid? I do. For the first time in my life, I am truly scared for the future of my country.
The world was starving. Hunger and fear. When the world goes into darkness it's almost always based on several small events followed by one cataclysmic event. Hitler used the world economic crisis as a pivot-point. He said, "We're going to protect the common man" and people rallied around Hitler.I'm not saying Obama is like Hitler. This isn't a "Democrats are bad" diatribe. I have actually felt disenfranchised from both parties. I left the Republican Party during the first George W. Bush term and joined the Libertarian Party. I rejoined the Republican Party during the 2008 election to support Mike Huckabee... and later, John McCain [although I felt that John McCain was not much different from Barack Obama]. I voted for McCain, although I admit I wavered during the election and wasn't too disappointed at the final result.
What has been happening, however, is far worse than I ever imagined. I believe we are heading down a path that we will not easily return from. We are not simply suffering from a bumbling President who says silly things or has strong [albeit misdirected] convictions. We are facing extreme changes in our way of life -- in the very basis of our government -- in the foundation of our Constitutional Republic.
George Bush (the first) used the Iraqi attack on Kuwait as a motive to invade Iraq. Bill Clinton used the bombings of embassies [in East Africa] as an excuse to bomb Afghanistan in August 1998. Osama Bin Laden used the bombings in Afghanistan to justify the World Trade Center attack on 9/11/01. George W. Bush used the 9/11 attack as an excuse to invade Afghanistan -- and later, to invade Iraq again.
But would our current administration use a crisis to make bold moves? They said this was going to be an administration of change. They were going to do away with "old politics."
Rahm Emanuel (President Obama's COS) said in November 2008:
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
So yes... they would use a crisis as a means to an end. Especially if the "end" was a Socialist agenda that gets them things they have pushed for for decades -- national health care, easing trade sanctions, easing immigration, building welfare programs, etc.
What worries me is that this "crisis" has been totally manufactured. Was the bank failure/bailout/AGI scandal manufactured? The auto industry bailout [and subsequent firing of the CEO of GM] manufactured? I don't know, but I think it is definitely something we need to keep an eye on. Remember this quote?
"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy." -- Joe Biden
Is anybody else feeling paranoid? I do. For the first time in my life, I am truly scared for the future of my country.
I know I am starting to fall into that, "Oh, he's crazy" category. I suffer from a serious disability... I think for myself. I have strong opinions... and appreciate other opinions [even if they are very different from mine]. I am a Christian, a Creationist, I oppose abortion, I oppose the death penalty, I think we should bring all of our soldiers home [so we can guard our own borders], I think we should blow the "pirates" [aka terrorists] that attacked an American ship out of the flippin' water, I think we should stop bailing out businesses that failed, I think we need to stop apologizing [and taking the blame] for the world's problems, and I think we need to get back to what our Constitution stands for and back away from our current move toward Transnationalism. (More about that later)
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Obama asks for funding that he opposed two years ago...
April 9, 2009
Obama to seek $83.4 billion for Iraq, Afghan wars
By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press Writer
President Barack Obama asked Congress on Thursday for $83.4 billion for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressing for special troop funding that he opposed two years ago when he was senator and George W. Bush was president.
Obama's request, including money to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, would push the costs of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. The additional money would cover operations into the fall.
Obama is also requesting $350 million in new funding to upgrade security along the U.S.-Mexico border and to combat narcoterrorists, along with another $400 million in counterinsurgency aid to Pakistan.
"Nearly 95 percent of these funds will be used to support our men and women in uniform as they help the people of Iraq to take responsibility for their own future — and work to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Obama wrote in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, acknowledged that Obama has been critical of Bush's use of similar special legislation to pay for the wars. He said it was needed this time because the money will be required by summer, before Congress is likely to complete its normal appropriations process.
"This will be the last supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan. The process by which this has been funded over the course of the past many years, the president has discussed and will change," Gibbs said.
Last June, Congress approved $66 billion in advance 2009 funding for military operations. All told, the Pentagon would receive $142 billion in war funding for the budget year ending on Sept. 30.
The request is likely to win easy approval from the Democratic-controlled Congress, despite frustration among some liberals over the pace of troop withdrawals and Obama's plans for a large residual force of up to 50,000 troops — about one-third of the force now there — who will train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and personnel and conduct anti-terror operations.
The official request was sent early Thursday evening.
The request would fund an average force level in Iraq of 140,000 U.S. troops. It would also finance Obama's initiative to boost troop levels in Afghanistan to more than 60,000 from the current 39,000. And it would provide $2.2 billion to accelerate the Pentagon's plans to increase the overall size of the U.S. military, including a 547,400-person active-duty Army.
Some Democrats were not pleased.
"This funding will do two things — it will prolong our occupation of Iraq through at least the end of 2011, and it will deepen and expand our military presence in Afghanistan indefinitely," said anti-war Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif. "Instead of attempting to find military solutions to the problems we face in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama must fundamentally change the mission in both countries to focus on promoting reconciliation, economic development, humanitarian aid, and regional diplomatic efforts."
But House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio predicted that Republicans would overwhelmingly support the request, provided congressional Democrats don't seek to "micromanage" the war by adding a timeline or other restrictions on the ability of military officials to carry on the fight.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, said, "The reality is the alternative to the supplemental is a sudden and precipitous withdrawal of the United States from both places, and I don't know anybody who thinks that's a good idea." He said, "The reality is it would put everything we have achieved in Iraq at tremendous risk, and I believe it would greatly endanger our troops."
Obama was a harsh critic of the Iraq war as a presidential candidate, a stance that attracted support from the Democratic Party's liberal base and helped him secure his party's nomination. He opposed an infusion of war funding in 2007 after Bush used a veto to force Congress to remove a withdrawal timeline from the $99 billion measure.
But he supported a war funding bill last year that also included about $25 billion for domestic programs. Obama also voted for war funding in 2006, before he announced his candidacy for president.
The request includes $75.8 billion for the military and more than $7 billion in foreign aid. Pakistan, a key ally in the fight against al-Qaida, will receive $400 million in aid to combat insurgents.
The upcoming debate in Congress is likely to provide an early test of Obama's efforts to remake the Pentagon and its much-criticized weapons procurement system. He is requesting four F-22 fighter jets costing about $600 million as part of the war funding package but wants to shut the F-22 program down after that.
The special measure would include $3.6 billion for the Afghanistan National Army.
The White House wants the bill for the president's signature by Memorial Day, said a House Democratic aide.
Obama announced plans in February to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq on a 19-month timetable.
His new request would push the war and diplomatic money approved for 2009 to about $150 billion. The totals were $171 billion for 2007 and $188 billion for 2008, the year Bush increased the tempo of military operations in a generally successful effort to quell the Iraq insurgency.
U.S soldiers of 101st Airborne Division patrol in their armored vehicle in Parwan province, north of Kabul, Afghanistan, Monday, April 6, 2009. U.S. President Barack Obama has increased the U.S. focus on Afghanistan and has pledged to send 21,000 additional troops to bolster the 38,000 already in the country. (AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)
Defense Secretary Robert Gates looks on as President Barack Obama makes remarks on veterans healthcare, Thursday, April 9, 2009, in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus in Washington. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
Obama to seek $83.4 billion for Iraq, Afghan wars
By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press Writer
President Barack Obama asked Congress on Thursday for $83.4 billion for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressing for special troop funding that he opposed two years ago when he was senator and George W. Bush was president.
Obama's request, including money to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, would push the costs of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. The additional money would cover operations into the fall.
Obama is also requesting $350 million in new funding to upgrade security along the U.S.-Mexico border and to combat narcoterrorists, along with another $400 million in counterinsurgency aid to Pakistan.
"Nearly 95 percent of these funds will be used to support our men and women in uniform as they help the people of Iraq to take responsibility for their own future — and work to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Obama wrote in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, acknowledged that Obama has been critical of Bush's use of similar special legislation to pay for the wars. He said it was needed this time because the money will be required by summer, before Congress is likely to complete its normal appropriations process.
"This will be the last supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan. The process by which this has been funded over the course of the past many years, the president has discussed and will change," Gibbs said.
Last June, Congress approved $66 billion in advance 2009 funding for military operations. All told, the Pentagon would receive $142 billion in war funding for the budget year ending on Sept. 30.
The request is likely to win easy approval from the Democratic-controlled Congress, despite frustration among some liberals over the pace of troop withdrawals and Obama's plans for a large residual force of up to 50,000 troops — about one-third of the force now there — who will train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and personnel and conduct anti-terror operations.
The official request was sent early Thursday evening.
The request would fund an average force level in Iraq of 140,000 U.S. troops. It would also finance Obama's initiative to boost troop levels in Afghanistan to more than 60,000 from the current 39,000. And it would provide $2.2 billion to accelerate the Pentagon's plans to increase the overall size of the U.S. military, including a 547,400-person active-duty Army.
Some Democrats were not pleased.
"This funding will do two things — it will prolong our occupation of Iraq through at least the end of 2011, and it will deepen and expand our military presence in Afghanistan indefinitely," said anti-war Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif. "Instead of attempting to find military solutions to the problems we face in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama must fundamentally change the mission in both countries to focus on promoting reconciliation, economic development, humanitarian aid, and regional diplomatic efforts."
But House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio predicted that Republicans would overwhelmingly support the request, provided congressional Democrats don't seek to "micromanage" the war by adding a timeline or other restrictions on the ability of military officials to carry on the fight.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, said, "The reality is the alternative to the supplemental is a sudden and precipitous withdrawal of the United States from both places, and I don't know anybody who thinks that's a good idea." He said, "The reality is it would put everything we have achieved in Iraq at tremendous risk, and I believe it would greatly endanger our troops."
Obama was a harsh critic of the Iraq war as a presidential candidate, a stance that attracted support from the Democratic Party's liberal base and helped him secure his party's nomination. He opposed an infusion of war funding in 2007 after Bush used a veto to force Congress to remove a withdrawal timeline from the $99 billion measure.
But he supported a war funding bill last year that also included about $25 billion for domestic programs. Obama also voted for war funding in 2006, before he announced his candidacy for president.
The request includes $75.8 billion for the military and more than $7 billion in foreign aid. Pakistan, a key ally in the fight against al-Qaida, will receive $400 million in aid to combat insurgents.
The upcoming debate in Congress is likely to provide an early test of Obama's efforts to remake the Pentagon and its much-criticized weapons procurement system. He is requesting four F-22 fighter jets costing about $600 million as part of the war funding package but wants to shut the F-22 program down after that.
The special measure would include $3.6 billion for the Afghanistan National Army.
The White House wants the bill for the president's signature by Memorial Day, said a House Democratic aide.
Obama announced plans in February to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq on a 19-month timetable.
His new request would push the war and diplomatic money approved for 2009 to about $150 billion. The totals were $171 billion for 2007 and $188 billion for 2008, the year Bush increased the tempo of military operations in a generally successful effort to quell the Iraq insurgency.
U.S soldiers of 101st Airborne Division patrol in their armored vehicle in Parwan province, north of Kabul, Afghanistan, Monday, April 6, 2009. U.S. President Barack Obama has increased the U.S. focus on Afghanistan and has pledged to send 21,000 additional troops to bolster the 38,000 already in the country. (AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)
Defense Secretary Robert Gates looks on as President Barack Obama makes remarks on veterans healthcare, Thursday, April 9, 2009, in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus in Washington. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Is it time for another tea party?
I created this web site because I think it's time that we start to remember our history. We are headed down a path that we [and other nations] have been down before. We are giving up freedoms for security; putting our government in charge of our banks and our businesses; letting our fears drive our political decisions.
It's time to stand up and tell our leaders that we've had enough. It's time to tell them we are on to them. It's time to tell them "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more."
If history is destined to repeat itself then I believe the inescapable conclusion is that we may be approaching a new American Revolution.
It's time to stand up and tell our leaders that we've had enough. It's time to tell them we are on to them. It's time to tell them "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more."
If history is destined to repeat itself then I believe the inescapable conclusion is that we may be approaching a new American Revolution.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)