Obama and Carter--Same Goals

How Jimmy Carter Ruined America Twice

February 28, 2013 by Wayne Allyn Root 

Until Barack Obama came along, Jimmy Carter held the title “Worst President in U.S. History.” Now, Carter may have taken the title back. You would have thought he’d be satisfied with almost destroying the U.S. economy and almost breaking the spirit of our country once. But, no! Thirty-three years later, Carter is now instrumental in helping Obama finish the job he started.

As President from 1976 to 1980, Carter came close to wrecking our economy and our entire country. An ultra-liberal, politically correct do-gooder, just like Obama, Carter announced his Presidency would be dedicated to “compassion” and human rights. And, just as had happened during Obama’s tenure, the leftist gobbly-gook “feel-good philosophy” led to disaster.

The Carter nightmare included four years of crippling high unemployment, stagflation of 13.5 percent, unimaginable 21.5 percent interest rates, record gas prices, shortages and gas lines, a doubling of the deficit from $27 billion to almost $60 billion, U.S. embassy personnel in Iran held hostage, an unsuccessful hostage rescue attempt, the embarrassing decline of our military, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. America almost did not survive Carter.

Along came a true patriot and American hero, Ronald Reagan, who turned Carter’s malaise and misery and the worst economy since the Great Depression into the greatest economic turnaround and expansion in world history. Reagan showed the world that America was indeed the “shining beacon on the hill.” Reagan made us great again and, by doing so, exposed Carter as an incompetent, ultra-liberal laughingstock. To make matters worse for Carter’s legacy, the U.S. hostages in Iran were released on Reagan’s Inauguration Day. Carter never forgave Reagan or America for leaving his reputation in tatters.

Carter wandered the wilderness for the past 33 years, growing more angry and bitter with each passing year. He took out his anger by embarrassing the United States and meddling in foreign affairs. He spent the past 33 years denouncing Israel, praising nations that supported Muslim terrorists, defying the U.S. travel ban to Cuba and praising tyrants like Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Yugoslavian dictator Josip Broz Tito and North Korean despot Kim Il Sung. He oversaw election fraud and corruption in Venezuela and Haiti and declared everything fair and square. The man has spent 33 bitter, disgraceful years venting his hatred for America.

Now, Carter has finally gotten his revenge. Angry at America’s success since Reagan, including those 40 million new jobs created since the early 1980s, Carter might be the man most responsible for Obama’s re-election, allowing him to continue the destruction Carter began all those years ago in 1976.

How did Carter help re-elect Obama? Mitt Romney was poised to do to Obama exactly what Reagan did to Carter. A brilliant businessman and turnaround specialist, Romney was the perfect man to again save America. He would have turned around this Obamageddon economy in two years with low taxes, reduced spending and smaller government — exactly how Reagan saved us from Carter. But along came that secret tape where Romney discussed “the 47 percent” of Americans who want government to give them checks and will vote for the politician who keeps the checks coming. The release of that tape was the beginning of the end for Romney. His reputation, likeability ratings and Presidential campaign never recovered.

Well guess who released that damaging tape? It was Carter’s grandson, Democratic operativeJimmy Carter IV, getting sweet revenge for Grandpa.

Carter’s grandson said: ”I’ve been hearing all my life people making fun of my grandfather, or saying that he was a bad president, or things like that, and I’ve just gotten used to it. And it’s nice to be able to hit back.”

Upon seeing the tape of Romney’s remarks, the former President said in an email to his grandson: ”James: This is extraordinary. Congratulations! Papa.”

It may not have been the only reason Romney lost, but it certainly did more damage to his campaign than anything Obama said in months of campaigning. And so, with the help of Carter’s grandson, history was changed. Instead of a modern-day Reagan, we got stuck with a second, disastrous term of a modern-day Carter. If Carter had been re-elected back in 1980, there very likely would never have been 40 million new jobs over the next 25 years. America’s military and economy probably never would have recovered, and we’d have a lower standard of living and gasoline prices of $8 per gallon — just like in the European socialist countries both Carter and Obama want America to emulate.

But thanks to Carter’s grandson, it’s Groundhog Day. Carter gets a do-over. We’re about to see what would have happened if we’d never elected Reagan and had given Carter a chance to finish the job of destroying America. We’re about to see if Obama can finish the job of destroying the U.S. economy in a second term — all in the name of tax and spend, compassion, fairness, social justice, and human rights.

Once Obama is done using Carter’s ultra-left policies to gain retribution and redistribution, I can imagine only that America will be a shell of its former self. America’s military will decline, the U.S. economy will continue in misery and malaise, inflation will return to unimaginable heights, debt will continue to rise, and gas lines and rationing will once again be part of our lives. America will be anything but exceptional.

Congratulations, Carter. It took 33 years and your grandson’s help, but you’ve finally gotten your revenge on the American people and American exceptionalism.

Sadly, just like a second term of Carter, I can promise you, this will not end well.

I’m Wayne Allyn Root for PersonalLiberty.com. See you next week. Same time, same place. That’s when I’ll present to you the solution, the perfect model to save America and the U.S. economy. Carter and Obama won’t like it. But it is proven to work. See you next week. God bless America

America's Airplane Ride to Oblivion

All we can say when we read this posting is WOW!  If you don't get it, you are one of those Americans who want everything for nothing or are completely oblivious to this country's dire situation.  Hopefully, after understanding what Doug Hagmann is saying, we can wake up one more American!

Are you fearful of current situation?  If not, read this piece.
Be afraid, be very afraid.

Conservative Tom

Flight of the U.S.A

Please comment on this article at Canada Free Press

By Douglas J. Hagmann

23 December 2012: Imagine the United States as one big jumbo jet on a lengthy journey to what our travel brochures described as the land of “milk and honey.” We are all passengers aboard this marvelous airbus of state-of-the art comfort along with a litany of well-trained pilots, crew members and support personnel, each taking their respective shifts on this multi-generational journey. The flight is complete with in-flight movies, food service, the all of the latest technology, along with a flight staff seemingly dedicated to our comfort.

As Americans, we boarded this aircraft long ago as we were promised a destination to the promised land of peace and prosperity by the flight planners and smiling and most accommodating crew. We were impressed by the amenities of the aircraft, complete with logos of the stars and stripes on the plane’s exterior and patriotic songs playing in a loop in the boarding area. Oh how proud we were!

As passengers excited and enthusiastic about our future, we paid little or no attention to the backgrounds, bona-fides or intentions of the pilots or crew. Seeing them clothed in their dress flight uniforms, standing aboard the aircraft to warmly greet us as the patriotic music faded quietly behind us,  they instilled confidence in our flight experience.

We boarded, settled in and took off, leaving the airport in “every town,” U.S.A. behind us as a memory of what once was. Upon reaching cruising altitude, drinks were served, the in-flight movie began, and passengers removed their various vices and devices from their carry-on bags to pass the time during this long flight.

As time passed, however, some passengers began looking out of the windows, seeing a different and unexpected landscape below. A landscape that was not advertised in the travel brochures. Questions among a few passengers began slowly at first, but then the curiosity of many passengers began to grow. Some began to ask, just what is this destination of milk and honey? By then, however, the hour grew late as the aircraft approached the point of no return.

Point of no return

The phrase “point of no return,” abbreviated “PNR,” originated as a navigational phrase that basically means what it says. Pilots flying aircraft experience a point in their flight when their fuel situation is such that they cannot return to their point of departure and barring any other possibility, must continue to their destination. Metaphorically, I believe America has reached the point of no return on our long journey to tyranny and totalitarianism disguised on the travel brochures as the land of “milk and honey.”

I also believe that we, as Americans, must contemplate our PNR as it means that we’ve been on our metaphorical journey for quite some time. We’ve switched pilots and flight crew during our journey, our pre-selected elected leaders, but never once changed our flight path. Please think carefully about this, as it serves as a serious indictment of our elected leaders and those who put them in office. As passengers, most of us watched our unchanging flight path, doing nothing more than complain to the flight crew while dutifully remaining in our seats. Others remained transfixed with the in-flight movie designed from the start to divert our attention from the events around us. That tactic alone served the ever-changing pilots and crew well.

Of conspiracy theories and racism

Throughout our flight, some passengers attempted to warn others of our flight path, leading to a change of pilots and crew. This window dressing calmed the fears of a number of passengers who failed to realize that merely changing pilots and crew would not change our destination. Some passengers attempted to warn all of us of the flight plan and that the pilots and crew were complicit. For the first part of our flight, those astute passengers were rebuffed by accusations of “McCarthyism,” followed by the label of conspiracy theorists, and now, with the current pilot, racists.

Interspersed among the passengers and quietly assisting the pilots and flight crew have been representatives of the media, who have done much to quell the complaints from the cabin. Working in exquisite synchronicity, the pilots, crew and media were well trained by the Marxist ideology through the likes of Antonio Gramsci, the Frankfurt School, the Fabian Socialists and even the Communist Party U.S.A. They were in on the flight plan from the start, and most of the pilots, crew, media and even some of the passengers graduated magna cum laude from these contemptible institutions of ideological Gomorrah.

Sadly, many passengers simply could not be bothered as they remained engrossed in the movie or their own devices, even becoming annoyed despite the ominous and obvious signs of trouble aboard the aircraft. The enlightened minority was rebuffed over and over. Complicity and complacency always work well in tandem.

We are still aboard this aircraft, and the commotion within the cabin has been increasing as we continue to travel at just below mach speed toward the critical point of no return. A number of previously complacent passengers changed from being complacent to inquisitive, and others from inquisitive to plotting the retaking of the aircraft. Yet, the spirit among many of the travelers en route to this unsavory destination continued to be split. In fact, a few of the spiritually renegade among us are still determined to join the mile high club, and have even been cheered on by both the complicit and complacent. After all, why not enjoy the flight while you still can, they reasoned.

Meanwhile, as the true flight plan of the aircraft began to become more well known among the passengers in the cabin, the accusations of conspiracy, lunacy, and the mother of all conversation stoppers, racism were shouted with greater tenor and more effective frequency. Some of the more vocal passengers, mentally and emotional bloodied by the accusations, chose silence. Others rebuffed the accusations but did little to inform or educate the other passengers of the greater picture, hoping that at the very least, their partial acquiescence would keep their frequent flier miles safe and intact. Sadly, no one will emerge with such benefits of this one-way flight.

The point of no return?

As I see it, the question today is whether we have reached the point of no return on our journey aboard the aircraft known as the United States of America. I believe we have, and as such, our options have become extremely limited, and are diminishing with every mile we travel.

We can chose to retake the aircraft, but in so doing, will have to fight a gauntlet of other passengers and flight crew. It will be ugly. We can choose to do nothing and simply hope for the best, in which case we deserve the welcome we receive upon landing at our ultimate destination.

Despite the obvious and adhering to their own normalcy bias, an overwhelmingly large number of passengers will continue to demand a change of pilots and crew, believing that will change the destination. Yet others will continue to be mesmerized by the in-flight movie, opting to listen to lies of the crew and other passengers in on the flight plan from the beginning.

In any case, we are about to learn the fate of the “Maiden of the World,” Flight U.S.A

Decline American Style

Some might think of us as pessimistic. We concur with that assessment. We see nothing positive in America's future. Let me explain with the use of a couple examples.

In the past week, we have seen Costco (a liberal organization whose co-founder Jim Sinegal spoke at the Democratic Convention) borrow money to pay dividends so that their stockholders could pay  a lower capital gains rate. Is that not ironic or should we say moronic?  Seems that it is ok to pontificate from on high but when it comes to the bucks, Mr. Jim is at the head of the line protecting his pocketbook. He saved a reported 4 million dollars in taxes with this move. We thought that the liberals think we are NOT paying enough taxes!  Greed shows up everywhere but who would think that a liberal organization would be so greedy. When individuals place their personal benefit over the country's (even though they express the opposite in public), it is an indicator of a country where "what's in it for me" has become the mantra. It is the end of doing good, its all about me.  The Costco example is a great example. It is enough to cancel your  membership.

Today in the Wall Street Journal it is reported that the military is looking for money to expand their anti-terrorism efforts and military presence into Africa namely Mali, Nigeria and Libya and other unnamed countries. We are big supporters of the military, however, when will  stop our attempts to control the entire world?

It is a sad day when Americans look to Washington to solve its problems and all we get back is rancor and posturing rather than hard work to solve the issues facing this country. One side (The President) wants only increases in taxes and spending and the other side (conservatives--we don't  think Republicans can get out of their own way) wants spending cuts.  Republican leadership (what is that?) offers the amount of increased taxes as Obama wanted on the campaign trail, but for the President that is not enough. What?  So much for principles?

No one in Washington seems serious about the spending, the absolute out of control government bureaucracy and the lack of seriousness that our "representatives" take to their job. Hey, we have a President that is going on a 20 day vacation to Hawaii just before we go over the cliff! And Congress will  be in recess during the same time, so they are no better! The House's last day is December 14 and the Senate's is December 31.  Does anyone really believe we will have a plan to solve the fiscal cliff in 7 days?  If so, I have this really cool bridge for sale.

You add onto this that our troops are in 80+ countries around the world--isn't it time to pull them back rather than continue to expand. We still have troops in Kosovo from the Clinton years. Why do we still have troops in Germany and Japan? Isn't it time that they provide for their own defense?

Rome ended when the government could no longer pay all the benefits its citizens wanted, when it could no longer support it far-flung military operations and when it went broke.  America is heading the same direction and very quickly. Unless we change direction very quickly, the US is destined for bankruptcy and worse. 

So when you look at the situation in which we find ourselves, it is very easy to pessimistic. We hold out the hope that there really is a light at the end of the tunnel, however, we think it is a train!

Pessimistically yours,
Conservative Tom

Barack Obama’s Phony Mandate

December 7, 2012 by Chip Wood 

PHOTOS.COM

Let me see if I have this right. Earlier this year, while campaigning for re-election, Barack Obama said he wanted to raise taxes $800 billion on everyone making more than $250,000 a year. Republicans were virtually unanimous in shouting, “No way!”

Then what happened when the Spender in Chief wins the White House for another four years? He promptly doubled down. Now, he says he wants $1.6 trillion in new taxes over the next 10 years. And our “don’t call my bluff” President made it abundantly clear that he’ll play hardball to get it.

When he appeared on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who is serving as Obama’s messenger boy to Capitol Hill, declared flatly: “There’s no path to an agreement that does not involve Republicans acknowledging that rates have to go up on the wealthiest Americans.”

In other words, it’s our way or the highway. So what did the Republicans do? Rather than sticking to their earlier promise, the leadership countered by agreeing to give Obama the $800 billion he originally asked for. Way to fight for principle, guys.

Of course, $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue isn’t all that the Democrats are after. Obama also wants $50 billion in new stimulus spending and another $30 billion to extend unemployment benefits. Plus, he wants the death tax to go back up to 45 percent on estates and family farms worth $3.5 million and more.

And it doesn’t end there. Geithner, a tax cheater, also says that it’s time to abolish the ceiling on the Federal debt. No more coming back to Congress, hat in hand, to increase the limit on how much money our bankrupt Federal government can borrow. No, if Team Obama gets its way, there will be no limits on how much deeper this country will go in debt. Isn’t that a lovely situation to contemplate?

What about cutting some spending? “We’ll talk about that sometime down the road” is the best Team Obama will offer. No wonder Charles Krauthammer said that the Democrats’ proposal is “not just a bad deal, this is really an insulting deal.” In fact, he added, “Robert E. Lee was offered easier terms at Appomattox and he lost the Civil War.”

What happens if House Republicans dig in their heels and just say no? Well, inaction might give the Democrats an even bigger victory. It would mean that the Bush tax cuts (which Obama extended in 2010) would expire on Jan. 1. Those increases, plus all the new taxes and fees that are part of Obamacare, will mean that our taxes will go up even more.

A lot of observers are convinced that Obama and his advisers will be only too happy to see the U.S. plunge over the much-hyped fiscal cliff. Either way, they get the tax increases they want. Plus, under the latter scenario, they get to blame the Republicans for not being willing to compromise. It’s a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose proposition, with the big spenders in Washington coming out ahead either way.

By the way, did you see what one top Obama supporter is doing to avoid paying a bunch of those new taxes? Jim Sinegal, the co-founder, director and former CEO of Costco, was so smitten by the job Obama is doing that he agreed to give a prime-time address at this year’s Democratic convention. So you’d think he’d be hunky-dory with the Obama tax increases, wouldn’t you?

Not on your life. This past week, Costco announced that it would pay a special dividend this month to all of its shareholders. It is doing it in December — and even borrowing the $3 billion it will cost — so shareholders won’t have to pay the higher tax on dividend income next year.

Since Sinegal owns 2 million shares of Costco stock, that’s $14 million he’ll get in this special dividend. At the current tax rate of 15 percent on dividends, he’ll have to fork over a little more than $2 million of it to Uncle Sam. But had Costco waited until January to pay the dividend, Sinegal’s tax rate would be 43.4 percent, or more than $6 million.

In other words, the former Costco CEO gets to pocket an extra $4 million that otherwise would have gone to the Internal Revenue Service. Merry Christmas!

So much for the “shared sacrifices” by Obama’s wealthiest supporters. Now, please allow me to puncture a few more holes in the Democrats’ balloon. Let’s turn to the myth that Obama got a huge mandate in the November elections.

Nonsense! Obama won 51 percent of the votes for President on Nov. 6. But only 60 percent of eligible voters even bothered to cast a ballot this year. Winning support from 30 percent of eligible voters is hardly an overwhelming mandate.

Plus, exit polls of the people who voted revealed that a majority of them didn’t want taxes increased on people earning $250,000 or more. Obama’s claim that the voters this year sent “a very clear message” that they favored higher taxes is a bunch of baloney.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that the problem in Washington isn’t too little revenue; it’s too much spending! If the Federal budget were reduced to what it was four years ago when Obama first took office, we wouldn’t need a nickel of new taxes to balance the budget.

In fact, if we held the line on spending and simply stopped increasing it every year, pretty soon Uncle Sam would enjoy surpluses once again. We could even start reducing the national debt, rather than see it go up more than $1 trillion a year.

Of course, there’s about as much chance of seeing this happen of a snowball surviving a trip through Hades. While it’s not what we wanted or worked for, I’m afraid it is now a virtual certainty we will see higher taxes and fewer new jobs and more new bureaucrats, regulators, tax collectors and other Federal busybodies next year.

And after that, it could get even worse.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

An Economic Lesson For The Ages

The following post is one of the best ones that we have seen  (other than ours, of course) which really tells the right story about the economy (here and abroad) and what we need to do.


We believe in the band-aid approach to economic troubles.  Better a short quick rough spot than a long, painful episode especially when we will end up in the same place.


The second to last paragraph should be reprinted and sent to every Congressman, Senator, the Fed and the President.  It should be the mantra of this and every following administration.


Let us know what you think.


Conservative Tom

Damn The Torpedoes
By:  Peter Schiff
Friday, June 8, 2012
Last week in an interview on CBS Network News, Economist Mark Zandi, the chief economist for Moody’s, unwittingly revealed a central error of the global economic establishment. Zandi has made a career out of finding the middle ground between republican and democrat economic talking points. As a result of this skill, he has been rewarded with large quantities of airtime from media outlets that want to appear non-partisan, despite the fact that his supposedly neutral analysis often leaves listeners frustrated.

When asked about the recent deterioration in the global economy, Zandi said that “the worst possible scenario” at present would occur if Greece were to leave the Eurozone. He claimed that the economic gyrations and liquidations of bad debt that would result from such an exit would be sufficient to create a vicious cycle that could drag the global economy back into recession. As a result, he urged policy makers to take whatever steps necessary to maintain the current integrity of the 17 nation Eurozone.

Given what most economists now know, few would actively argue that Greece’s entrance into the Eurozone back in 2001 was a good idea. In fact most concede it was a terrible idea based on bad forecasting and outright fraud. There is little disagreement over the fact that Greece grossly misrepresented its financial position in order to gain initial entry into the monetary union. It is also widely agreed upon that in the ensuing decade Greece exploited its monetary advantages to borrow irresponsibly.

Much has been written about how the fundamental misfit between Greece’s economy and currency gave birth to a deeply flawed system that was destined to run off the rails. Most also agree that the countries like Greece and Germany are too economically and culturally disparate to exist under the same monetary umbrella. But despite all this, Zandi wants to maintain the status quo. In his opinion, it is so imperative to prevent the deflationary consequences of an economic restructuring that it is preferable to prop up a failed system, perhaps indefinitely, rather than allow a newer, healthier system to replace it. In the process, the moral hazard created not only assures that Greece will become an even greater burden on Europe, but so too will other nations whose leaders will be emboldened in their profligacy by the anticipation of similar help.

From Zandi’s perspective (and he is certainly in the majority on this point) the goal of economic policy is to keep GDP growing. It follows then that he will oppose large-scale debt liquidations which drag down GDP in the short term. But sometimes debt needs to be liquidated. Bad ideas need to be abandoned. Once economies stop throwing good money after bad, capital is freed up to flow into more economically viable purposes. But economists and politicians never look at the long term. Their job seems to be to manage the economy for the next election.

The same “damn the torpedoes” mentality dominates economic thinking with respect to the U.S. economy as well. Years of artificially low interest rates, and government subsidies that direct capital towards certain sectors and away from others, has created an economy with too little savings and production, and too much borrowing and consumption. The ultra-low interest rates currently supplied by the Fed serve to perpetuate this unsustainable artificial economy. Higher rates would work quickly to redirect capital to the more productive sectors. But high rates could bring deflation and liquidation, which few economists are prepared to risk.

We have too many shopping malls selling stuff, but not enough factories making stuff. We have too many kids in college studying liberal arts, and not enough in the workforce acquiring skills that will actually increase their productivity. Banks are loaning too much money to individuals to buy houses, and not enough money to entrepreneurs to buy equipment. We have too many tax-takers riding in the wagon, and not enough taxpayers pulling it. The list is long, but the solutions are short.

We need to let interest rates rise to market levels, and allow the economy to restructure without government interference. We need to stop beating a dead horse and hitch our wagon to an animal that can really pull. The process will be painful for many, but like ripping off a band-aid, the pain will be over relatively quickly. However, since a painful restructuring means recession, politicians resist the cure with every fiber of their beings. So instead of a genuine recovery, one that will provide productive jobs and rising living standards, we get a phony recovery that produces neither.

Preserving a broken system merely to avoid the pain necessary to fix it only makes the situation worse.  Propping up sectors that should be contracting prevents resources from flowing to other sectors that should be expanding. Keeping workers employed in nonproductive jobs prevents them from gaining productive employment elsewhere. Encouraging activity or behavior the market would otherwise punish discourages alternatives that it would otherwise reward.

Unfortunately, leaders on both sides of the Atlantic put politics above economics, and economists like Mark Zandi provide the cover they need to get away with it.



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Please feel free to repost with proper attribution and all links included.

Is Gridlock Good?

Fred Thompson, writes a very thought provoking article today regarding the one idea about which all commentators  have been wringing their collective hands. That issue is "gridlock."Read the following article and tell us if you agree or not. We want to hear from you.

Conservative Tom

P.S.  We think he is on the right track.

Fiscal Gridlock

FRED THOMPSONNO COMMENTSSHARE

As you may recall, I recently wrote about the downside of cooperation and bipartisanship in Washington. Compromise, I said, in large part is what has gotten us into the fiscal mess we are in today. This, of course, goes against the grain of much of the “enlightened” mainstream commentators’ thinking. But upon reflection I felt that my analysis was somewhat incomplete. For example, don’t we need bipartisanship if we are ever going to reform entitlements and the tax code? So how does one determine when compromise is a good thing and when it’s not?
To answer this question, a couple of thoughtful columnists have recently come to the rescue. One of them is a conservative and the other is often called a liberal (though I now think that assessment is a little harsh). George Will wrote the following in the Washington Post on May 16:

Bipartisanship, the supposed scarcity of which so distresses the high-minded, actually is disastrously prevalent. Since 2001 it has produced No Child Left Behind, a counter productive federal intrusion in primary and secondary education … the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act; an unfunded prescription drug entitlement; troublemaking by Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac; government directed capitalism from the Export-Import Bank; crony capitalism from energy subsidies; unseemly agriculture and transportation bills; continuous bailouts from and unreformed Postal Service; housing subsidies; subsidies for state and local governments; and many other bipartisan deeds, including many appropriations bills.

It’s as good a summary of the bad results of bipartisanship as I’ve seen, and I’m familiar with them because I voted the wrong way on a couple of them back in the day. (Most of the legislative mistakes I made were when I gave the federal government the benefit of the doubt as to what it could competently do.) The common denominator of all of this legislation is spending and or regulating.
So if this is the downside of bipartisanship, when is it beneficial?  Two days after the Will article David Brooks, on the op-ed page of the New York Times wrote:

Congress is capable of passing laws that give people benefits with borrowed money, but it gridlocks when it tries to impose self restraint. … Leaders today do not believe their job is to restrain popular will. Their job is to flatter and satisfy it. … Western democratic systems were based on a balance between self doubt and self confidence. They worked because there were structures that protected the voters from themselves and the rulers from themselves. Once people lost a sense of their own weakness…it became madness to restrain your own desires because surely your rivals over yonder would not be restraining theirs.

As Brooks goes on to point out, this is one reason why Europe and the U.S. are facing debt crises and political dysfunction at the same time.
So there we have it. When it comes to the easy and enjoyable, such as spending other people’s money, bipartisanship reigns. It’s when it comes to something that would actually help the country – such as restraining ourselves from running off a fiscal cliff – that gridlock raises its ugly head. Witness Obama’s reaction when Rep. Paul Ryan put a reform plan on the table.
So when your liberal friends bemoan the gridlock and the lack of bipartisanship in Washington, tell them it’s not true. Gridlock happens only when politicians are actually trying to do something responsible – which is the much rarer occasion.
-Fred Thompson

Obama Inherited His Own Deficit

Received this posting from a unnamed source.  Whoever wrote it, had a great viewpoint. What is your opinion?

Conservative Tom





This tells the story, why Bush was so bad at the end of his term.

Don’t just skim over this, read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out.

The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009; it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.
The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress. At that specific time:

The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH


Remember the day...

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?


BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

Unemployment was added... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress

So when someone tries to blame Bush...

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

Debt Bigger Threat Than Foreign Enemies

If you ask most people they will say that Iran, Al Queda, Russia or some foreign nation or movement would be the  biggest threat to national security. However, as we keep spending and not trimming our budget, the debt monster gets worse by the day and so does the damage that will most assuredly occur when we cannot pay anymore.

The US already has decreasing education levels, a crashing middle class and permanent wars which are having a major emotional effect on Americans.  What would be the effect of a major decline in the economy which would result in a Greek type debt and employment restructuring?

Debt, whether personal, business or government, is very negative when it exceeds the ability to repay it. When income is reduced, debt must be reduced.  Unfortunately, when it comes to recent history, US debt has been escalating out of control without any plan to get it under control.

If there is a lesson from Greece, we see how other nations namely Germany and France,  dictated the terms and the Greeks had no choice to accept, otherwise a national bankruptcy was the only unacceptable choice.  How would you like to see debt cut by three quarters along with similar cuts in salaries?  Most of us would not!

However, in deference to Greece, it's debt was tiny in relation to ours.  Its debt was 160% of GDP while ours is around 100%.  Ours is the largest economy in the world and  therefore, the largest debt. Should we have a problem what would other nations do? Would our "friends and enemies" take advantage of the situation and demand conditions we normally would not accept? What might they want?

Other than repayment of the debt, foreign affairs would definitely be impacted. Could Mexico demand California? Could Russia demand the removal of all troops from Europe? Would Saudi Arabia make demands on us regarding our relationship with Israel?  What other impacts would you think there might be?

Whatever might happen, it will not be pretty and we fear how it will effect Americans when we realize we are no longer the big dog but just another soon-to-be third world.

Conservative Tom

America’s Biggest National Security Threat: U.S. Debt

By Morgan Korn | Daily Ticker – 3 hours ago

• 4
• Email
• Print

Video Player Controls

Follow The Daily Ticker on Facebook here!

The biggest threats to U.S. national security are the nation's domestic policies and not Iran, China, North Korea or Russia says Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

"What we do to improve our schools, our infrastructure, what we do to reduce the budget deficit…this is going to be critical in years and decades ahead," Haass says in an interview with The Daily Ticker. "The most important national security question for the coming year is actually the domestic set of issues that involves the economy."

A Council on Foreign Relations Task Force released a report last month that found the nation's ailing public school system "threatens the country's ability to thrive in a global economy and maintain its leadership role" and "educational failure puts the United States' future economic prosperity, global position, and physical safety at risk."

Haass says these policy failures and intransigence by lawmakers to seriously and vigorously tackle the looming budget crisis portends a weaker U.S. in an increasingly competitive global economy.

"The United States right now has put itself in a position of some vulnerability," he says. "We're vulnerable to the inflows of dollars, we're vulnerable on the energy front, and the challenge for the United States in the national security realm is to do things that reduce our vulnerability to the decisions and behaviors be it foreign governments or markets."

Entitlement reform, typically a "third rail in American politics," will be the top priority after the November election, regardless of who wins the White House, says Haass. The nation's current fiscal situation cannot be reversed without changes to these entitlement programs, but it's "unrealistic to look to campaign positions as a serious guide" to how the 2013 White House will fix these critical budgetary obstacles.

Budget proposals put forth by both President Obama and Republican Congressman Paul Ryan address Medicare and Medicaid spending. But there "has to be bipartisan governance moving forward" for any reform to happen, Haass says.

Kids Today Are Unrealistic

Anytime we read an article such as the one that follows, it makes us angry for a couple reasons.  First of all, these are going to be the adults who will run this country in the future and secondly, why haven't parents raised their children not to be so entitled that when shoes are not sold to them, they riot.


The first point should be clear. If individuals believe they "deserve" something, they will demand it and that demand will not be focused on themselves. Rather they will want it to come from their partner, their company or in most cases the government. With this type of behavior, should the government not grant their "requests", one can expect riots in the streets ( as is occurring in Greece) and politicians agreeing with the rioters as to curry their vote.  This is not good for the future.


Secondly, parents in the United States today, have never experienced real hardship therefore have not prepared their children to hear the word, "NO" or "we can't afford it" or "maybe someday."  Delayed gratification is an unheard of notion.  We want it now! 


Unless drastic measures are taken quickly, the next forty years will not be pretty in the United States. We will have to get used to being much less affluent, not the leader of the free world and having our children understand that their lives might not be as good as their parents. Will our "leaders" finally get some gumption and effect change or will they go along sending the US into a downward spiral?


Leaders generally reflect the populace. If the public wants change, the leaders change. It is time for us to demand our leaders lead us out of this morass and back onto the path that has always made our country great.  We are trying to do our part, are you?


Conservative Tom

When Spoiled-Rotten Children Grow Up

March 2, 2012 by Chip Wood 

Riot police had to be called to an Orlando mall on Feb. 23. Why? Because an unruly crowd of would-be shoppers couldn’t wait to get their hands on the new Foamposite One Galaxy by Nike.

In case you’ve never heard of it (I hadn’t either), this is a special-edition basketball shoe that Nike introduced just days before the NBA All-Star Game. The House of Hoops by Foot Locker at Florida Mall had ordered a bunch of the shoes and announced that they would be sold (at $220 a pair) on a first-come, first-served basis at midnight.

Hundreds of people showed up long before the sale was to begin. Police were called to maintain some semblance of order. But well before the sale began, several hundred people rushed the door.

Law enforcement officers in riot gear pushed back the crowd. The store decided not to open that night at all. By Friday morning, Foot Locker announced that it was canceling the All-Star weekend shoe release at six other malls because of “safety concerns.”

So a near-riot broke out because some spoiled brats couldn’t wait to get their hands on a $220 pair of tennis shoes. Isn’t that ridiculous?

Frankly, we shouldn’t be surprised. This is just one more consequence of the entitlement philosophy our children have been taught. It’s been going for several generations.

Let me begin the litany of who’s to blame with these kids’ teachers. What sort of messages have they been sending their young wards? How much of our history have they been teaching them? What kind of character have they been building?

Nationally, teachers’ unions collect hundreds of millions of dollars every year from mandatory dues. They spend a ton of it lobbying for laws they want passed. Or, as they’ve proven in dozens of States, battling legislation they oppose. They are an almost perfect example of the “I want mine, and I want it now” philosophy — no matter the cost to the overburdened taxpayers who must foot the bills.

The teachers’ unions defend a status quo that produces 1 million high-school dropouts a year and a graduation rate of less than 50 percent for black and Hispanic students. What sort of education do the kids who do graduate have? How much of this country’s history have they learned? You don’t want to ask. Heck, half of them can’t write a literate sentence or give the correct change for a $20 bill.

But let’s not let the parents off the hook. How many of them are delighted to let the schools take all responsibility for training and teaching their young? How many try to give their kids everything they want, from the latest cell phone and video game to $150 jeans and $200 tennis shoes?

In fact, how many of those same parents bought more house than they could afford, then decided that somebody else had to pay for their mistake? Five of our largest banks have been pressured into creating a $26 billion kitty to help bail them out. Of course, this won’t begin to paper over the problems. So you can expect a lot more hands to be out, demanding that someone come to their rescue.

And let’s not forget about one of the most feared and powerful voting blocs in this country: our senior citizens. Any politician with the temerity to try to change some of the entitlement programs that are bankrupting this country is sure to face some of the most vicious and dishonest advertising campaigns this country has ever seen. Remember the Democrats’ response to Paul Ryan’s efforts to reform Medicare? Their “throw grandma off the cliff” TV ad was a classic of the type.

The demagogues on the left learned long ago that if they can portray an opponent as wanting to “eliminate Social Security” or “slash Medicare,” they are almost certain of victory. So what if they are creating obligations this country can’t afford to keep? They want political power now — no matter the obligations that will be passed down to our children and grandchildren.

The “Age of Entitlement” isn’t limited to a bunch of spoiled teenagers threatening to riot if they can’t get the brand-new basketball shoes they want. You’ll find plenty of members in every age group in this country.

How much of a stake do these people have in preserving and protecting the system, when they pay almost nothing into it? Nearly half of the adults in America don’t pay a penny in income taxes. What do they care how much your taxes have to go up to provide them with the goodies they are certain they deserve?

To quote an old phrase, anyone who promises to rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the vote of Paul. And my friends, there are an awful lot of Pauls and Paulines in this country now.

And there are a lot of people willing to promise them almost anything in exchange for their votes.

We’ll find out in November who will win the next round in this ongoing struggle.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.