Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Second presidential debate. And the winner was ...
The President had a few zingers, but overall I'd call it a draw. Good for Mitt Romney, who will surely be prepared to aggressively address the President's handling of the Libya situation in next Monday's final debate.
Here's the debate in its entirety:
Here's the debate in its entirety:
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Thursday, October 11, 2012
The lie about Bush's "failed economic policies"
During tonight's debate and for the rest of the campaign, you'll hear the Obama campaign warn that Mitt Romney wants to "take us back to the failed policies of the Bush years."
But were President Bush's policies really a failure? Did the economy not grow? Did we have high unemployment? Did the rich not pay their "fair share"? Here are a few facts about those "failed" policies of President Bush:
Did the economy grow during the Bush years? Yes. President Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress passed two rounds of tax cuts - in 2001 and in 2003. The first occurred just before 9/11/01 and may've blunted the economic damage wrought by that tragedy. And when combined with the second round of cuts, the economy did grow:
But didn't President Bush deprive the Federal government of needed revenue? Actually, no. After the second round of Bush tax cuts, the federal government took in MORE money:
The Punch Line. That the Bush years didn't end well is a simple fact. 2008 was the worst year of President Bush's term - in terms of economic growth, unemployment, and the deficit. Note, however, that this was the only time in his office when he had to work with a Congress that was led (in both houses) by Democrats. That's not an excuse for President Bush, but it shines light on the myth that Democrats (either the President or Congress) are in any way fiscally responsible.
Further, President Obama has used this poor conclusion to the Bush years as an excuse at every turn for his own failure to unleash the American economy.
Sources of information for this post:
But were President Bush's policies really a failure? Did the economy not grow? Did we have high unemployment? Did the rich not pay their "fair share"? Here are a few facts about those "failed" policies of President Bush:
Did the economy grow during the Bush years? Yes. President Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress passed two rounds of tax cuts - in 2001 and in 2003. The first occurred just before 9/11/01 and may've blunted the economic damage wrought by that tragedy. And when combined with the second round of cuts, the economy did grow:
- Under George Bush, from 2001 through 2007, the economy grew for 24 consecutive quarters. That's six full years.
- The economy grew at a rapid pace of 7.5 percent above inflation during the third quarter of 2003 – the highest in any quarter since 1984.
- Under President Obama, the economy has never had quarterly growth as high as any of the THREE highest-growth quarters under President Bush (in 2003, 2005, and 2006)
But didn't President Bush deprive the Federal government of needed revenue? Actually, no. After the second round of Bush tax cuts, the federal government took in MORE money:
- The federal government saw record tax revenues each year in 2005, 2006, and 2007.
- Between 2004 and 2006, capital gains realizations grew by approximately 60 percent.
- Corporate income tax receipts nearly doubled between 2004 and 2007.
- From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history.
- The President's tax relief reduced the share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers from 3.9 percent in 2000 to 3.1 percent in 2005
- It also increased the share paid by the top 10 percent from 46.0 to 46.4 percent over that same period.
- The same trend holds if you compare tax burdens in 2003 with those in 2007 -- in each case, the rich paid a higher percentage and the bottom 50% paid a lower percentage.
The Punch Line. That the Bush years didn't end well is a simple fact. 2008 was the worst year of President Bush's term - in terms of economic growth, unemployment, and the deficit. Note, however, that this was the only time in his office when he had to work with a Congress that was led (in both houses) by Democrats. That's not an excuse for President Bush, but it shines light on the myth that Democrats (either the President or Congress) are in any way fiscally responsible.
Further, President Obama has used this poor conclusion to the Bush years as an excuse at every turn for his own failure to unleash the American economy.
Sources of information for this post:
- http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html
- http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/02/22/after-bush-tax-cuts-payments-by-wealthy-actually-increased/
- http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/bushrecord/factsheets/taxrelief.html
- http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
- http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Do you know why you support President Obama?
If you're voting for President Obama, consider this question:
What great thing are you expecting President Obama to do if he's reelected? To put it another way, which of his policies are you really looking forward to seeing implemented?
For just a second, forget Mitt Romney (and George Bush). If you're having a hard time explaining why Barack Obama should get a second term in office, then it's a good time to re-think your voting decision.
What great thing are you expecting President Obama to do if he's reelected? To put it another way, which of his policies are you really looking forward to seeing implemented?
For just a second, forget Mitt Romney (and George Bush). If you're having a hard time explaining why Barack Obama should get a second term in office, then it's a good time to re-think your voting decision.
TOTUS demands entry to next presidential debate
Sources report that TOTUS (Teleprompter Of The United States) is steamed that it was snubbed at the first presidential debate and is demanding admission to the upcoming debate on October 16.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Unemployment dropped - or did it?
You may have heard that the monthly jobs report for September just came out, and that the unemployment rate dropped from 8.2% to 7.8%. Not really.
In fact, the "real" unemployment number was unchanged from last month at 14.7%. Why is this number so much higher than the widely reported 7.8% number? Because it includes those who are underemployed and those who have given up looking for jobs.
But let's assume that unemployment really is below 8%. This is the first time in President Obama's entire term that the rate has been below 8% (though it was never that high under President Bush). Isn't that great news for America -- and for the President?
It's good for the President, but unfortunately not for America. The jobs report says that 114,000 jobs were added last month. America's population grows by roughly 150,000 to 225,000 per month. If two-thirds of those new Americans need to have jobs (and that's roughly accurate), then we need to add over 120,000 jobs per month just to keep pace with our population growth.
This economy is not improving at an acceptable pace -- if it is improving at all.
In fact, the "real" unemployment number was unchanged from last month at 14.7%. Why is this number so much higher than the widely reported 7.8% number? Because it includes those who are underemployed and those who have given up looking for jobs.
But let's assume that unemployment really is below 8%. This is the first time in President Obama's entire term that the rate has been below 8% (though it was never that high under President Bush). Isn't that great news for America -- and for the President?
It's good for the President, but unfortunately not for America. The jobs report says that 114,000 jobs were added last month. America's population grows by roughly 150,000 to 225,000 per month. If two-thirds of those new Americans need to have jobs (and that's roughly accurate), then we need to add over 120,000 jobs per month just to keep pace with our population growth.
This economy is not improving at an acceptable pace -- if it is improving at all.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Presidential Debate - October 3, 2012
Overall, Mitt Romney showed his fluency with our nation's economy and financial situation. He came off as the more experienced of the two candidates, the more engaging, and the better leader.
President Obama identified several plans that he claims will help our economy in the coming years if he's reelected (e.g., "close loopholes in the tax code," "hire 100,000 teachers").
But if you still support President Obama, let me ask you a question: Since he DIDN'T do these things in his first four years as President, why do you have any reason to expect him to do them in the next four years?
If you missed the first presidential debate, you can watch it here.
President Obama identified several plans that he claims will help our economy in the coming years if he's reelected (e.g., "close loopholes in the tax code," "hire 100,000 teachers").
But if you still support President Obama, let me ask you a question: Since he DIDN'T do these things in his first four years as President, why do you have any reason to expect him to do them in the next four years?
If you missed the first presidential debate, you can watch it here.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Thoughts on the 2012 election
President Obama should not be re-elected, and I urge you to work to prevent his re-election. To that end, I urge you to VOTE, to SUPPORT right-minded candidates, and to ENCOURAGE OTHERS to do the same. Also, please PRAY for God's mercy on our nation and its leaders.
Our nation faces stark economic, social, and cultural realities, and Americans know it. If you’re like most Americans, you don’t think the U.S. has the top economy in the world anymore, and you don’t think your personal finances are improving. Worse, you don’t expect the U.S. economy to better off in five years than it is today, and you don’t expect your children to be better off economically than you are. You think that poverty is severe in the United States, and you think the U.S. is heading in the wrong direction. On the international front, you think that China – which is widely viewed as a threat to our allies and an unfair competitor to us – is the world's leading economic power. Further, you don’t think U.S. relations with the Islamic world are better now than they were four years ago. And you don’t approve of the job President Obama’s doing. [All statements based on results of recent polling done by Gallup or Rasmussen.]
This is an election for choosing sides. Not rich versus poor. Not black versus brown versus white. Not old versus young. Not men versus women. But liberty versus soft tyranny. A restored vision of America versus a fundamentally transformed vision. President Obama is shepherding us toward the latter (as he said he would). By contrast, Mitt Romney’s election can be an early step in restoring our nation’s heart and strength. It certainly must not be the last step, but we must begin now.
If you’re so inclined, please pass this along to like-minded friends or those who might be persuaded. You can also link to this blog from your Facebook page, tweet out a link to the blog, or follow me on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/Cville2Cville.
Why oppose President Obama’s re-election? These reasons suffice for me:
- President Obama has failed to govern competently as president.
- I don't want to saddle my kids with the diminished America that President Obama is advancing and will continue to advance, perhaps irreversibly, if he's given another term.
- President Obama has furthered the grotesque division among Americans that he was elected to unite.
- President Obama's worldview is government-centered, prioritizes government control, and ignores and undermines the dignity of individuals.
You may question or disagree with me. Or you might wonder how you can explain it to others or simply learn more. In any case, please review the contents of this blog (http://orbitingtheson.blogspot.com). This blog includes many video clips of the President’s own statements, along with video clips commenting on his policies. It addresses many reasons to oppose President Obama’s re-election. In particular, this blog includes posts on the following subjects:
Your time is precious, so I've tried to use the most concise video clips available. I want you to see the facts and hear the statements for yourself.
Our nation faces stark economic, social, and cultural realities, and Americans know it. If you’re like most Americans, you don’t think the U.S. has the top economy in the world anymore, and you don’t think your personal finances are improving. Worse, you don’t expect the U.S. economy to better off in five years than it is today, and you don’t expect your children to be better off economically than you are. You think that poverty is severe in the United States, and you think the U.S. is heading in the wrong direction. On the international front, you think that China – which is widely viewed as a threat to our allies and an unfair competitor to us – is the world's leading economic power. Further, you don’t think U.S. relations with the Islamic world are better now than they were four years ago. And you don’t approve of the job President Obama’s doing. [All statements based on results of recent polling done by Gallup or Rasmussen.]
Still, many millions of Americans support the President, and they will vote. So, if you agree with me in opposing the President’s re-election, then you must stand up and must encourage others to do likewise.
This election is an opportunity to show compassion. Compassion for the poor and unemployed in the United States. Compassion for those trying to live a life of peace and stability in the Middle East. Compassion for the unborn. Compassion for those sacrificing and struggling to start a business.
This election, like any, will hinge on TURNOUT. Polls don't matter, and opinions don't matter. Prayers matter. And votes matter. So pray! And vote! And tell those in your sphere of influence via Facebook. Or blog. Or Twitter. Or email. Or door knocking. Or phone banking. Or yard sign. Or bumper sticker. Or all of the above.
This election, like any, will hinge on TURNOUT. Polls don't matter, and opinions don't matter. Prayers matter. And votes matter. So pray! And vote! And tell those in your sphere of influence via Facebook. Or blog. Or Twitter. Or email. Or door knocking. Or phone banking. Or yard sign. Or bumper sticker. Or all of the above.
This is an election for choosing sides. Not rich versus poor. Not black versus brown versus white. Not old versus young. Not men versus women. But liberty versus soft tyranny. A restored vision of America versus a fundamentally transformed vision. President Obama is shepherding us toward the latter (as he said he would). By contrast, Mitt Romney’s election can be an early step in restoring our nation’s heart and strength. It certainly must not be the last step, but we must begin now.
This is an election that goes beyond the presidency. Over 450 members of Congress are up for election, as are hundreds of state and local officials. Every office matters, both because of the decisions these elected officials will make and because of the judges and others they will appoint.
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
VOTE NOW!
You know you should vote, but when? Well, if you live in most states, then there's no time like the present! Election Day is Tuesday, November 6, but most states allow people to vote before then. My home state requires that you satisfy one of several exceptions in order to vote early, but many states have a no-excuse-required early voting. To find your state's policy concerning early voting, start here.
So if you're ready to vote now, then do it! You'll avoid the long lines on Election Day, escape the risk of being unable to vote on Election Day, and have time on Election Day to rally your friends and neighbors to the polls.
If you or a friend is still on the fence about voting or for whom to vote, you may want to check out The Hope and the Change documentary.
In addition to voting for President, you'll get to vote for your member of the House of Representatives and likely for one of your state's U.S. senators. To find out who represents you in Congress, click here.
So if you're ready to vote now, then do it! You'll avoid the long lines on Election Day, escape the risk of being unable to vote on Election Day, and have time on Election Day to rally your friends and neighbors to the polls.
If you or a friend is still on the fence about voting or for whom to vote, you may want to check out The Hope and the Change documentary.
In addition to voting for President, you'll get to vote for your member of the House of Representatives and likely for one of your state's U.S. senators. To find out who represents you in Congress, click here.
Foreign policy under President Obama
Most Americans (including myself) are wary of heavy American involvement in foreign affairs, given the exhausting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But our President and our military have been active abroad, so it must be discussed.
Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011 by U.S. soldiers, with direction from President Obama. That's great news. But Al Qaeda and related terrorist groups remain. Indeed, we just suffered our 2000th casualty in Afghanistan, and many of these dead were killed by Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. We have had a military presence in Afghanistan since October 2001, yet more than two-thirds of the American deaths there have occurred since President Obama took over.
President Obama says that Al Qaeda is "on the path to defeat." Sadly, I'm not sure about that. A Muslim military officer who killed 13 fellow American soldiers in 2009 at Fort Hood was sympathetic to the cause of Jihad and (tenuously, perhaps) tied to several of the original 9/11 terrorists.
Further, on September 11, 2012, a U.S. embassy was attacked and an American ambassador killed by members of an Al Qaeda affiliate. This tragedy, as well as the President's ever-evolving story about how it happened and who was responsible, are troubling to say the least.
Indeed, reports now indicate that the President's administration had advance knowledge of the danger to our people in Libya but still denied their requests for increased security.
Concerning Afghanistan, what is President Obama's strategy? He ordered a "surge" of 33,000 additional troops in Afghanistan in 2009. But at the same time he announced the surge, he also announced a timetable by which we would begin to draw down our troops. The rate of American deaths there dramatically increased after he ordered the surge.
What was the goal of the surge? Why did we tell our enemies when we were leaving? And now that we have begun to leave, what did we accomplish? There are bad actors in Afghanistan that we might have needed to deal with, but President Obama's plan was aimless. It is hypocritical for him to claim to be winding down the war in Afghanistan when he "wound it up" three years ago and can point to no benefit of having done so.
President Obama also claims that he ended the war in Iraq. Of course, many soldiers have left Iraq on his watch (many still remain), which is great news. But President Obama fails to mention that President Bush signed the security agreement with Iraq in 2008 that established the timeline for withdrawal in 2011. President Obama didn't end anything; he is merely following the plan that was in place when he took office.
Overall, United States foreign policy has been perplexingly inconsistent, both concerning where we have chosen to intervene (Libya, Afghan surge) and where we have chosen not to intervene (Syrian innocents, Iranian dissidents). President Obama helped to bring about the removal of Qadaffi in Libya -- a strongman dictator, but one who had given up his chem/bio weapons program during the Bush administration. Further, he cheered the departure of Egypt's leader Mubarak, another strongman but a tepid American ally.
Again, I have no desire to see America overstretched or needlessly involved militarily, but President Obama's foreign policy credentials should hardly be a reason to re-elect him.
To verify the facts asserted on this page, see:
Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011 by U.S. soldiers, with direction from President Obama. That's great news. But Al Qaeda and related terrorist groups remain. Indeed, we just suffered our 2000th casualty in Afghanistan, and many of these dead were killed by Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. We have had a military presence in Afghanistan since October 2001, yet more than two-thirds of the American deaths there have occurred since President Obama took over.
President Obama says that Al Qaeda is "on the path to defeat." Sadly, I'm not sure about that. A Muslim military officer who killed 13 fellow American soldiers in 2009 at Fort Hood was sympathetic to the cause of Jihad and (tenuously, perhaps) tied to several of the original 9/11 terrorists.
Further, on September 11, 2012, a U.S. embassy was attacked and an American ambassador killed by members of an Al Qaeda affiliate. This tragedy, as well as the President's ever-evolving story about how it happened and who was responsible, are troubling to say the least.
Indeed, reports now indicate that the President's administration had advance knowledge of the danger to our people in Libya but still denied their requests for increased security.
Concerning Afghanistan, what is President Obama's strategy? He ordered a "surge" of 33,000 additional troops in Afghanistan in 2009. But at the same time he announced the surge, he also announced a timetable by which we would begin to draw down our troops. The rate of American deaths there dramatically increased after he ordered the surge.
What was the goal of the surge? Why did we tell our enemies when we were leaving? And now that we have begun to leave, what did we accomplish? There are bad actors in Afghanistan that we might have needed to deal with, but President Obama's plan was aimless. It is hypocritical for him to claim to be winding down the war in Afghanistan when he "wound it up" three years ago and can point to no benefit of having done so.
Many who voted for President Obama were told that a less prominent American role abroad would cause America to be more well-liked on the world stage, but it hasn't worked out that way yet.
Again, I have no desire to see America overstretched or needlessly involved militarily, but President Obama's foreign policy credentials should hardly be a reason to re-elect him.
To verify the facts asserted on this page, see:
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6521758/Fort-Hood-shooting-Texas-army-killer-linked-to-September-11-terrorists.html
- http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/328840/libya-timeline-eliana-johnson
- http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/obamavsbush
- http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/09/29/obamas-afghan-surge-failed/
- http://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/1677009-obama-didn-t-end-the-war-in-iraq-bush-did
- http://icasualties.org/OEF/ByMonth.aspx
Government regulation under President Obama
Administrative agencies are the fourth branch of government, although they're not mentioned in the Constitution. Ever heard of them? (Stick with me here -- this isn't as dull as it sounds.)
I'm referring to agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Products Safety Commission that wield tremendous power with limited external controls. Yes, they're chartered by Acts of Congress and are subject to varying degrees of Congressional and executive oversight, but they operate largely under the radar. Much of what these agencies do is to create and enforce regulations. Regulations are effectively federal laws that don't have to be expressly passed by Congress or signed by the President.
Regulations have been commonplace for many decades, but President Obama really loves them:
Our government massively regulates. The document that contains the ongoing record of regulations issued by all the Federal government's administrative agencies (the Federal Register) exceeded 80,000 pages in 2010 alone. But the length of the regulations isn't nearly as important as the burden they impose on society.
For us, many regulations are merely day-to-day nuisances concerning everything from the light bulbs we buy to the cars we drive to limits on the amount of water that can flow through our shower head (or toilet). But they can also have the harmful effect of causing a business to lay off employees, raise its prices, or shut down altogether.
For example, regulations aren't merely a nuisance to the Mississippi woman who was sentenced to prison for moving dirt on her land (thanks to a violation of an agency enforcing the Clean Water Act). They weren't merely a nuisance to Gibson Guitars, which was raided by Justice Department for obtaining imported wood in alleged violation of an environment regulation. And they aren't a nuisance to the makers of Buckyballs (I love them!), which is at war with the Consumer Products Safety Commission to avoid being shut down.
Many others can say the same thing.
Regulations don't just harm businesses, but people too. Some even affect poor people disproportionately:
Of course, regulations do inspire some snazzy YouTube videos by those that they harm:
Some regulations are necessary. But many regulations should be done away with. And all regulations must be approached very cautiously.
Unfortunately, President Obama is comfortable with imposing regulations that may bankrupt even an entire industry, like domestic coal.
Here are some concluding thoughts from the late, great economist Milton Friedman.
I'm referring to agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Products Safety Commission that wield tremendous power with limited external controls. Yes, they're chartered by Acts of Congress and are subject to varying degrees of Congressional and executive oversight, but they operate largely under the radar. Much of what these agencies do is to create and enforce regulations. Regulations are effectively federal laws that don't have to be expressly passed by Congress or signed by the President.
Regulations have been commonplace for many decades, but President Obama really loves them:
Our government massively regulates. The document that contains the ongoing record of regulations issued by all the Federal government's administrative agencies (the Federal Register) exceeded 80,000 pages in 2010 alone. But the length of the regulations isn't nearly as important as the burden they impose on society.
For us, many regulations are merely day-to-day nuisances concerning everything from the light bulbs we buy to the cars we drive to limits on the amount of water that can flow through our shower head (or toilet). But they can also have the harmful effect of causing a business to lay off employees, raise its prices, or shut down altogether.
For example, regulations aren't merely a nuisance to the Mississippi woman who was sentenced to prison for moving dirt on her land (thanks to a violation of an agency enforcing the Clean Water Act). They weren't merely a nuisance to Gibson Guitars, which was raided by Justice Department for obtaining imported wood in alleged violation of an environment regulation. And they aren't a nuisance to the makers of Buckyballs (I love them!), which is at war with the Consumer Products Safety Commission to avoid being shut down.
Many others can say the same thing.
Regulations don't just harm businesses, but people too. Some even affect poor people disproportionately:
Of course, regulations do inspire some snazzy YouTube videos by those that they harm:
Some regulations are necessary. But many regulations should be done away with. And all regulations must be approached very cautiously.
Unfortunately, President Obama is comfortable with imposing regulations that may bankrupt even an entire industry, like domestic coal.
Here are some concluding thoughts from the late, great economist Milton Friedman.
To verify the facts asserted on this page, see:
Why trust a Republican?
I've been let down before. I voted for George W. Bush, and there's still a lot of lingering disappointment (though I think his performance as president is underrated by many).
There are no perfect politicians, and we shouldn't look for one. Unlike many of President Obama's supporters, I am not looking for my president to be a hero, savior, or movie star. I want someone with experience and intelligence who will govern based on conservative principles, live and model a life of character, communicate clearly, and lead.
I believe that Mitt Romney fits that bill quite nicely. I'll leave the hagiography to others, but Governor Romney seems by all accounts to be an intelligent, highly accomplished, egalitarian leader with high moral character, the ability to communicate and make decisions, a conservative bent, and an exceptional understanding of American business in a time when American business desperately needs to be unleashed.
As I've said elsewhere, this election cannot be a final step. There'll be much work to do and many hard days after November 6, but I think Mitt Romney is up to the task.
Concerning members of Congress and state and local officials, I urge you to do your own homework. But our national politics is so polarized that control of the House of Representatives and the Senate is crucial to the success of a President Romney. In light of this, I would have a hard time voting for any Democrat over any Republican this year -- barring some personal scandal or clear incompetence. Of course, I'm sure there are exceptions.
I will make one point in rebuttal to President Obama. The President has spent the past four years beating up President Bush for "getting us into this mess," and he now says that Mitt Romney wants to impose "the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place."
But the President never names any particular policies. They're just nameless, mess-causing policies, which the President promises to remedy by bringing us to "shared prosperity." But was the problem of the Great Recession a lack of "shared prosperity," as the President thinks? Or was the problem instead a crisis and collapse in the housing and financial markets, as many others have thought? And whose fault is that? In my view, the President can't name a truly, objectively failed domestic policy from the Bush years, because the bad government we've experienced is the result of Democrats and/or combined Democrat-Republican misfeasance.
That said, I am not excusing the Republicans' behavior during their time in power.
There are no perfect politicians, and we shouldn't look for one. Unlike many of President Obama's supporters, I am not looking for my president to be a hero, savior, or movie star. I want someone with experience and intelligence who will govern based on conservative principles, live and model a life of character, communicate clearly, and lead.
I believe that Mitt Romney fits that bill quite nicely. I'll leave the hagiography to others, but Governor Romney seems by all accounts to be an intelligent, highly accomplished, egalitarian leader with high moral character, the ability to communicate and make decisions, a conservative bent, and an exceptional understanding of American business in a time when American business desperately needs to be unleashed.
As I've said elsewhere, this election cannot be a final step. There'll be much work to do and many hard days after November 6, but I think Mitt Romney is up to the task.
Concerning members of Congress and state and local officials, I urge you to do your own homework. But our national politics is so polarized that control of the House of Representatives and the Senate is crucial to the success of a President Romney. In light of this, I would have a hard time voting for any Democrat over any Republican this year -- barring some personal scandal or clear incompetence. Of course, I'm sure there are exceptions.
I will make one point in rebuttal to President Obama. The President has spent the past four years beating up President Bush for "getting us into this mess," and he now says that Mitt Romney wants to impose "the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place."
Even so, if President Obama truly thinks the problem is a lack of shared prosperity, then he has failed by his own measure. Indeed, during his time as president, the gap has widened between rich and poor.
Debt under President Obama
Proverbs rightly observes that "the borrower is the slave of the lender" (Prov. 22:7). President Obama knows this. He called President Bush unpatriotic for incurring so much debt to fund our government's programs -- military and otherwise. While a nation may occasionally need to go into debt, President Bush deserved criticism for his profligate spending. President Bush inexcusably accumulated over $4 trillion in debt over his 8 years.
By contrast, President Obama has accumulated over $5 trillion more in only four years. Think of that for a second. One zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero. Times five.
And President Obama has been consistent, with four consecutive years of trillion-dollar deficits.
To verify the statistics used on this page, see:
By contrast, President Obama has accumulated over $5 trillion more in only four years. Think of that for a second. One zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero. Times five.
And President Obama has been consistent, with four consecutive years of trillion-dollar deficits.
To verify the statistics used on this page, see:
- http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/09/28/How-Romney-Can-Win-the-Debates-and-Close-the-Gap.aspx#page1
- http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/sep/28/ron-johnson/sen-ron-johnson-says-deficits-under-obama-total-53/
- http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/
Taxes under President Obama
He promised not to raise any taxes for families earning under $250,000 per year.
And now those taxes are starting to hit home. See http://news.yahoo.com/tax-penalty-hit-nearly-6m-uninsured-people-194442599.html.
For further information on the Obamacare taxes, see http://www.atr.org/five-worst-obamacare-taxes-coming-a7217.
Speaking of tax hikes, have you heard about the fiscal cliff coming in January? It's big, and it's VERY bad.
But then he spent his first 15 months in office working to pass Obamacare, which imposes numerous taxes -- including on those who earn far less than $250,000. For awhile, he argued that Obamacare didn't really include any tax. But his own lawyers -- doubtless with his knowledge -- argued repeatedly to the Supreme Court that it does include at least one tax.
Why would he argue one way, and then the other?
Another question is this: in the depths of the recession in 2009, why did he waste so much time to pass a health care law that adds massively to the federal debt and includes a tax increase? Wasn't the economy supposed to be top priority?
For further information on the Obamacare taxes, see http://www.atr.org/five-worst-obamacare-taxes-coming-a7217.
Speaking of tax hikes, have you heard about the fiscal cliff coming in January? It's big, and it's VERY bad.
But can't we just get more money out of the rich?
Maybe that won't quite cut it...
The last word here goes to the late great economist, Milton Friedman:
President Obama's economic record
Vice President Biden recently acknowledged that the American middle class has been "buried" over the last four years.
Indeed, forty-four months into Barack Obama's presidency, the nation's economy is in an awful condition:
And even when he acknowledges that things are bad, he argues--without evidence--that it would be worse if not for his leadership.
Indeed, after spending a trillion dollars on stimulus programs that have not markedly improved the economy, President Obama has joked on occasion about the failure of his economic leadership.
To verify the statistics used on this page, see:
- 8.1% of Americans are unemployed, constituting over 12.5 million people.
- Factoring in the millions who have stopped looking for work and part-time employees who are unable to find full-time work, the unemployment rate is really 14.7%.
- Five million Americans have been unemployed for 6 months or longer.
- Unemployment has been above 8 percent for 43 consecutive months. That number NEVER went above 6.5% under President Bush from the time he took office in 2001 until late 2008.
- Monthly job growth is below 100,000. This means that the number of jobs being added to the economy is less than we need just to keep pace with the growth in population, i.e., the number of new people who need to feed their families.
- Many of the jobs that have been added are in lower-paying industries.
- For American small business, which is commonly considered to be the main engine of job growth, growth is roughly zero.
- The labor force shrank 368,000 last month, and many of those people simply gave up looking for work.
- Labor force participation rate has dropped to the point where only 63.5 percent of the population is working or looking for work. This is the lowest level since shortly after Ronald Reagan was elected in 1981.
- Our nation's economic growth estimates have been revised down to 1.3%, which is less than the rate of inflation.
- At this point in Ronald Reagan's first term in 1984, the economy was growing at well over 5% and adding over 300,000 jobs per month (in a country with far fewer people).
- Medium American household income is LOWER than it was at the depth of the recession in 2009. In fact, it dropped just as much from 2009 to 2011 (all under President Obama) as it did from 2007 to 2009 (under Bush and Obama combined).
- Nearly 50 MILLION Americans are using food stamps, and food stamp usage has increased nearly 50% since President Obama took office.
- In sum, this is the worst post-recession recovery period in at least 40 years, and arguably much longer.
President Obama is responsible for this economy, as he has acknowledged.
He even said that he would not be reelected if he wasn't "done" fixing the economy by now:
The latest jobs news is stark:
Even so, President Obama still makes outlandish claims about how things are going:
And even when he acknowledges that things are bad, he argues--without evidence--that it would be worse if not for his leadership.
Indeed, after spending a trillion dollars on stimulus programs that have not markedly improved the economy, President Obama has joked on occasion about the failure of his economic leadership.
To verify the statistics used on this page, see:
- http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/09/18/report-median-income-worse-now-than-it-was-during-great-recession/
- finance.yahoo.com/news/us-economy-adds-96k-jobs-123111662.html
- www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-07/payrolls-in-u-s-rose-96-000-in-august-jobless-rate-falls.html
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/%E2%80%A6/91da9a88-f84e-11e1-8253-3f495ae70650_story.html?hpid=z2
- http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
- http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
- http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/09/28/How-Romney-Can-Win-the-Debates-and-Close-the-Gap.aspx#page1
- http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2012/09/27/us-2q-gdp-growth-revised-down-to-13/
- http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
President Obama's worldview
Four years ago, then-candidate Obama promised to fundamentally transform America.
He is working toward that goal and, unfortunately, having some success. America has been an exceptional nation from its founding, and it does not require fundamental transformation. Rather, as a great -- though imperfect -- nation, it requires restoration.
President Obama's words and actions before and since taking office are cause for concern. In particular, his governing philosophy has at least three deeply troubling aspects:
President Obama doesn't promote human dignity
President Obama appears to love his wife and daughters, yet this love does not seem to translate to his view of the most vulnerable among us -- the unborn. Even if those unborn would be his own grandchildren:
His thoughtless attitude toward the unborn is reflected not simply in his words, but also in his actions:
His thoughtless attitude toward the unborn is reflected not simply in his words, but also in his actions:
Even beyond the issue of abortion, President Obama belittles the deeply held views of those who do not share his politics:
President Obama's government-control worldview
Of course, nearly everyone agrees that our society should care for the most needy among us who cannot care for themselves. But President Obama believes in the government redistributing wealth on a far greater scale.
He told "Joe the Plumber" that it's good to "spread the wealth around."
For many years, President Obama has been trying to figure out the "trick" of how to structure systems that facilitate wealth redistribution because he "believe[s] in redistribution."
President Obama supports redistributive taxation, even though he knows that tax increases hurt.
One of the goals of wealth redistribution is to minimize the gap in income between the rich and the poor. But a much better goal is to increase the income of both rich and poor.
Margaret Thatcher, a highly successful Prime Minister of Britain, forcefully addressed this very issue.
President Obama's wealth-spreading might look a little like this (comic relief):
President Obama also knowingly makes policy decisions that will increase costs, thereby harming American businesses and consumers.
For example, he admits that the energy policy he advances will increase energy prices.
He also admits that he wants to increase the capital gains tax not in spite of the cost to taxpayers but because of the cost (in the name of fairness).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)