Thursday, July 9, 2009

Obamanomics Supporters - Cracks in the Dike

Larry Elder :: Townhall.com Columnist






While the media stopped to cover Michael Jackson's death,several tremors rocked the foundation of something that actually affects us all -- Obamanomics.


First, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who supported the President over his Republican rival, criticized Obama's spending, saying "we can't pay for it all." Powell said: "I'm concerned at the number of programs that are being presented, the bills associated with these programs and the additional government that will be needed to execute them. ... One of the cautions that has to be given to the President -- and I've talked to some of his people about this -- is that you can't have so many things on the table that you can't absorb it all."



Second, a few days ago, respected British economist Tim Congdon dusted off a 2003 paper -- written pre-Obama spending -- by the Federal Reserve's senior economist. It warned of the nation's growing debt and deficit, calculating their impact on long-term interest rates. The Fed's conclusion? "A percentage point increase in the projected deficit-to-GDP ratio raises the 10-year bond rate expected to prevail five years into the future by 20 to 40 basis points. ... Similarly, a percentage point increase in the projected debt-to-GDP ratio raises future interest rates by about 4 to 5 basis points." In plain English, this means, as Congdon puts it, a "debt explosion." Applying the 2003 paper's calculations and assumptions to our debt and deficit numbers under Obama, Congdon sees the "horrifying" consequences of bank bailouts and increased public spending.


Third, billionaire/Obama supporter Warren Buffett warned of impending inflation caused by increased government spending. "A country that continuously expands its debt as a percentage of GDP," he said, "and raises much of the money abroad to finance that, at some point, it's going to inflate its way out of the burden of that debt. ... Every country that's denominated its debt in its own currency and has found itself with uncomfortable amounts of debt relative to the rest of the world, in the end they inflate. And that becomes a tax on everybody that has fixed dollar investments."


Fourth, the Obama-supporting/George W. Bush-hating/billionaire benefactor of hyper-liberal MoveOn.org, George Soros, predicted that the administration's spending and borrowing will trigger inflation and higher interests rates. "As markets revive," he said, "fear of inflation will drive up interest rates, which will choke off recovery." (Emphasis added.)


Our country rushes ever closer to a Canadian/European economic model, where government spends a greater and greater percentage of the nation's income -- whether on education, "bailing out" private companies, "assisting" states that have imprudently run their affairs, supplying "free" health care and health insurance, or the creation of "green jobs" to battle "global warming."


President Obama and the Democratic Party's congressional supermajority represent nothing less than a grave and gathering threat to that which made America great -- free enterprise, competition, allowing people to keep as much of their own money as possible, and the assumption that people know better how and on what to spend their money than does government.

The Truth Is Out There!

By Digital Publius Blogspot

The truth is indeed out there, if you are inclined towards it, it can be found. The problem is not that the truth is or is not knowable, but rather that it is so often ignored when it conflicts with ones deeply held ideologies. This is the case often, when you endeavor to hold civil discourse with those that lean more towards their ideologies than reality and who are committed to remaking the world into a reflection of those ideologies despite the truth. This is how I would define the average liberal.


Interestingly enough, not all Democrats are liberals. Many of the people who vote Democrat that I know, share the same conservative values that I proudly trumpet. Unfortunately; there is a disconnect, they can’t see that when they support the Democratic party for the social issues they may believe to be virtuous, you become a de facto liberal because you cannot support the party of affirmative action without supporting the unGodly party of abortion on demand and Gay marriage.


Where your average liberal is often favorably disposed towards irrational beliefs and doctrines of devils, your average Democrat is simply to lazy or racist to look into the truth as they have made up their minds based on those aforementioned ideologies. Democrats however can on occasion be reached, yours truly would be an example of that particular truth. Democrats when confronted with the proof they are often to lazy to look into themselves, will on occasion admit that they were making a grave error when supporting a character like Barney Franks. They even sometimes, like me, become Ex-Democrats. A liberal never ever sees beyond the unicorns President Obama promised him he would have to ride around the autonomous collectives we will all live and work on.


For the liberals out there I’m joking about the President promising literal unicorns, I wish I could say that his actions thus far hadn’t made the autonomous collectives look so likely though.


As for racism, without it there would be no Democratic party. Racism drives the democratic party. You have the liberal Democrat, (White or Black) who is perhaps the most racist human being on earth who is so convinced of the inferiority of the minorities in America (even when he is one) he is compelled to help them by lowering standards so they can compete with there betters. This of course ends when it comes to rubber meeting the road programs like school vouchers where it would put their little Suzy in direct contact with a child from a family really seeking to improve that child’s lot by allowing them to contend on an even playing field, can’t have that.


Then you have the Original Democrats, these are folks that know the origin of the Democratic party. They know that it was the Democrats who started the Klu Klux Klan, with the express purpose of terrorizing black voters and to keep them from voting for the party that freed them. The O.D.s are the ones that still remember it was the Democrats during the civil rights movement that turned on the fire hoses and loosed the dogs on the civil rights activists in the 50s and 60s. It was the Democrats that raised the Confederate battle flag over all the municiple buildings in the south.


The O.D.s know that the party simply changed tactics when they lost the civil rights struggle, instead of beating and lynching people, they began to implement programs that stemmed the tide of independent minority progress both socially and economically, while appearing to be the party of the black man. Since we began to vote en masse for the democrats can we as the black community honestly say we are better off? With 70 percent of our children now being born out of wedlock and the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country? With our young men disproportionately represented in the nations jails and prisons and killing themselves in violent criminal activity in staggering numbers? This was not the case during my parents time nor was it the case when I was a kid in the 70’s when the liberal programs were just getting started, we are only now really seeing the bitter harvests that those programs are yielding.


Then you have the Black Democrat who if he is an elected official just may fall under the liberal umbrella depending on the level of indoctrination he fell victim to, I think our President falls under this category. The other elected official category is the Black Democrat who knows these programs are no good for the black community but he has sold himself out to the O.D.s for special favors. These are the real house negroes in the black community and they are represented in large numbers.


The Black Democrats are ofttimes virulently racist as well, so racist in fact that they do not think themselves capable of racism. I have heard such nonsensical rhetoric as, it is impossible for the black man to be racist because we don’t have the power to impose our racism institutionally. Let that be a comfort to you white folks if your Beamer stalls out on the corner of Mack and Beewick in Detroit and you are not their buying drugs.


The Black Democrat votes for the party primarily because they believe the Republican party is the party of white folks. The Democratic party has worked tirelessly to foster that belief and the Republican party has done little to combat that perception, despite a rich history of being the true party of equality.


Democrats can sometimes be reached with facts, liberals are completely indifferent to them, unless of course in those rare occasions where those facts have the virtue of agreeing with their varying realities.


I wrote an article last election day entitled, “The Bush Economy and the Politics of Ignorance”, which illustrated the unfortunate propensity liberals and democrats have to ignore empiricism in favor of rhetoric, emotionalism and racism if you haven’t read it you may find it worthy of your attention, I do hope everyone who voted democrat in that election reads it, as well as an article I wrote called, “Rahm and Hegel Sittin’ in a Tree K.I.S.S.I.N.G.” which includes a timeline of President Bush’s statements in warning of the then coming financial crisis and his attempts to stave it off. These articles and the following C-Span video offer enough evidence of the culpability of the Democrats in the collapse of Fannie and Freddie which triggered this economic malaise that Obama’s policies are only deepening.


It is time to stop calling this financial crisis the Bush economy and place it at the feet of those who truly are responsible. Democratic voters wake up! Liberals, well, take another Percocet.


Behold, You desire truth in the inner being; make me therefore to know wisdom in my inmost heart. Psalm 51: 6

Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables


WND

LAW OF THE LAND



Justice discusses 'growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of'


© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Supreme Court Justices Pose For Class Photo

In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."


Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday but viewable online now, came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."


The 16-year veteran of the high court was asked if she were a lawyer again, what would she "want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda."


Abortionists admit killing babies, call it 'absolute evil.' Get the culture-war classic 'The Marketing of Evil' – autographed – $4.95 today only!

Ginsburg responded:


Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don't know why this hasn't been said more often.

Question: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?


Ginsburg: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae – in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.