Obama giveth…

To paraphrase a common saying, “Obama giveth, Obama taketh away.”  As part of Obama’s stimulus plan (I’ve forgotten if it was plan #1 or plan #2), Obama granted special tax breaks to the general aviation industry.

Now, as part of his political rhetoric to demonize industry, particularly those eeevile corporate jets, he wants congress to remove the “special subsidies” the ‘pubs, uhhh, dems gave them a year or so ago.  As usual, Obama and the dems think we’re fools that will believe any lie coming from the White House.

Wrong!

Here are a couple of cartoon that addresses this issue better than I.
First is this from Michael Ramirez.

The next is from Chuck Asay.

Y’all have a nice day!

Our Constitution: the Dems hate it, the ‘Pubs are too spineless to support it.

I’ve long thought that the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution was a mistake.

Amendment 17 – Senators Elected by Popular Vote. Ratified 4/8/1913. History
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

The establishment ‘Pub Senators are preparing to roll-over and give away our best weapon to curb the dem’s spending—blocking the federal debt limit increase.

Cornyn Says Republicans May Accept ‘Mini’ Deal on Raising U.S. Debt Limit

By Angela Greiling Keane – Jul 4, 2011 8:01 AM CT
Republicans might accept a “mini” deal with the Obama administration on raising the debt limit, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a Republican leader, said yesterday on “Fox News Sunday.”
The idea may delay politically difficult decisions if it’s structured to postpone action on a larger package of spending cuts or revenue increases until after the 2012 election cycle, an analyst said.

What the establishment ‘pubs hope is that they can make all the dem counter-attacks wait until after the election.  They think that if they’ll cave on blocking the debt limit increase, they’ll remove an arrow from the dem’s quiver.

Stupid!

The time to show resolve, the time to show some backbone is now.  Not, in 2012 when it’s too late.  

The dems are helpless if they can’t spend to keep their protected voting blocks satiated on taxpayer money. Chuck-U Schumer (D-NY) is already planning options in case the ‘pubs don’t cave.  Ignore congress and spend anyway.  They claim the 14th Amendment makes any such spending limit unconstitutional.

Chuck Schumer: 14th Amendment Option ‘Certainly Worth Exploring’

WASHINGTON — Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Friday that invoking the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which states that federal debts “shall not be questioned,” to continue paying government obligations is a strategy worth considering should a debt-ceiling deal remain elusive. 
In late May, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner read directly from the 14th Amendment to a crowd of reporters, emphasizing the clause “shall not be questioned.” And rank-and-file Senate Democrats are increasingly looking to the 14th Amendment as a way out of the debt-ceiling impasse, as HuffPost reported on Tuesday.
When asked about the Constitution’s 14th Amendment during a conference call with reporters, Schumer, who leads Senate Democrats’ communications effort, said, “It’s certainly worth exploring.”

The spinelessness of the ‘pubs and the statist agenda of the dems scream for a change.  The real purpose of the 17th Amendment was to weaken the power of the states.  the cry was for more “democracy.”  That was a diversion of the real purpose behind this amendment.  The United States is NOT a democracy.  It is a republic and for very good reasons.  

Jefferson, I believe, said that the republic form of government was chosen to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Madison and de Tocqueville echoed those thoughts.

With examples of senatorial integrity like Schumer (D-NY) and Cornyn (R-TX), we have to perfect examples why the 17th Amendment was a mistake.  Let’s repeal and put the power back into the hands of the states—as it was originally.  The sole reason that each state had two Senators was to balance the power of the states against one another and to provide equal representation of the states in Congress.

Prior to the 17th Amendment, Senators were appointed—not elected, by the state legislators.  What the states could appoint.  A vote of the state legislature was all that was needed.  I admit in some states that could be difficult.  On the other hand, we have the example of Wisconsin earlier this year.

State control of Senators would restrain any accesses by Senators that ran contrary to the best interests of the states. Given the nature of the state of Texas, its Governor and of the ‘pub majority in the statehouse, I strongly doubt Cornyn would have made such an outrageous state has he did on considering a “mini” debt limit increase.

Every day, it seems, we see another example how wise and how much foresight the Founders had when designing our Constitution.  And we see more and more attempts by those who hate our country and our Constitution working to destroy both. That is all the more reason to revert to our government’s original design.

Stupid is as Stupid does.

The debt ceiling/control/reduction talks have stalled. Republicans Canton and Kyle walked out in disgust because the only options acceptable to the dems were more taxes and that option is not acceptable to the ‘Pubs.

The talks may restart if Obama personally is involved. That may happen. Maybe. If it doesn’t interfere with his golf sessions. Oh, and Nancy Pelosi demands that she must be present too.

If Nancy is there (why?), then the talks are doomed. And that may be a good thing. The debt ceiling doesn’t have to be raised. The solution, without increasing the debt, is to prioritize spending and reducing spending—something the dems are incapable of doing unless they are forced.

Little Timmy Geithner, speaking before the House Small Business Committee said, “Let’s have a show!” Uhh, “Lets increase taxes…on small businesses.” Small businesses are the ones who employee the most in the private sector. Geithner wants to raise taxes on them. The result will be reduced net revenues and that will drive jobs how?

Read the column below about Geithner’s remarks. It’s clear he doesn’t have a clue.

Editorial: How Big Gov’t Strangles The Job Creators

Budget: The secretary of the Treasury says taxes must be raised on small business so the federal government can stay big. With that breathtaking statement, he helpfully mapped out the key difference between the parties.
While testifying Wednesday before the House Small Business Committee, Timothy Geithner told Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., that hiking taxes on small businesses is the only “alternative” that will allow “a balanced approach to reduce our fiscal deficits.”
“If you don’t touch revenues,” Geithner said, “you have to shrink the overall size of government programs, things like education, to levels that we could not accept as a country.”
Some factions just won’t accept shrinking the size of government. Most in them run in the same tight circles as Geithner. Never hearing anything other than support for increasing the size of government, they assume that’s what Americans want.
But quite a few Americans have been wanting to cut government for decades, and that number is growing as the almost intractable problems created by overspending have become more obvious.
From Social Security and Medicare to housing assistance and farm subsidies to, yes, even education, federal programs need to shrink or be eliminated. There’s not a single item in the budget, including defense, that can’t use some judicious trimming.
In fiscal 2011, Washington will spend more than $3.8 trillion, according to the government’s historical tables. The federal debt, caused by lawmakers’ habit of spending money they don’t have, will exceed $15 trillion by the Sept. 30 end of the 2011 fiscal year. Washington cannot tax its way out of this hole.
Yet Democrats never give up hope they can raise taxes, and this particular Democrat wants to slap higher rates on small business. This is an especially poor choice. Small businesses are America’s jobs engine.
Even more appalling is the fact Geithner didn’t back off his position when Ellmers told him that 64% of new jobs in this country are created by small businesses. In fact, he acknowledged that she is correct.
While the number Ellmers used is compelling, we believe the rate is actually higher, around 85%. We base this estimate on our own database of public companies, which shows that over the last 25 years, big businesses created no net new jobs. That leaves small business as virtually the only job creator.
Geithner’s unabashed statement helps explain the sorry situation in which America finds itself. But in so doing, he has also provided the clarity that voters will need when his boss comes up for re-election.

Incompetency abounds. More and more, it seems that stupidity is a dem trademark.

“If you don’t touch revenues,” Geithner said, “you have to shrink the overall size of government programs, things like education, to levels that we could not accept as a country.”

Who’s this “we” Timmy? It certainly isn’t the rest of the country beyond the Beltway. Shrinking, perhaps the complete elimination of the Department of Education is certainly on the table as far as “we” are concerned.

UPDATE: Obama met with Senator McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, concerning raising the debt ceiling. It did not go well for Obama. McConnell is showing some guts. I want Boehner to do the same.

Revenue vs. cuts in debt debate

President Barack Obama stepped back into deficit-reduction talks Monday, only to be greeted by a double-barrel blast from Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who peremptorily rejected any deal that would include the added revenues Obama wants together with spending cuts.

McConnell’s meeting with the president stretched more than an hour, but even before the two men sat down together, the Kentucky Republican had delivered a toughly worded speech on the Senate floor and posted an opinion piece on CNN.com demanding that “tax hikes” come off the table. Returning to the Capitol after his own shorter session with Obama on Monday morning, a sad-faced Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told POLITICO: “The issue isn’t what we’re willing to do. It’s what they [the Republicans] are willing to do.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57890.html#ixzz1QaSTZlzk

Stupid is as Stupid does.

The debt ceiling/control/reduction talks have stalled. Republicans Canton and Kyle walked out in disgust because the only options acceptable to the dems were more taxes and that option is not acceptable to the ‘Pubs.

The talks may restart if Obama personally is involved. That may happen. Maybe. If it doesn’t interfere with his golf sessions. Oh, and Nancy Pelosi demands that she must be present too.

If Nancy is there (why?), then the talks are doomed. And that may be a good thing. The debt ceiling doesn’t have to be raised. The solution, without increasing the debt, is to prioritize spending and reducing spending—something the dems are incapable of doing unless they are forced.

Little Timmy Geithner, speaking before the House Small Business Committee said, “Let’s have a show!” Uhh, “Lets increase taxes…on small businesses.” Small businesses are the ones who employee the most in the private sector. Geithner wants to raise taxes on them. The result will be reduced net revenues and that will drive jobs how?

Read the column below about Geithner’s remarks. It’s clear he doesn’t have a clue.

Editorial: How Big Gov’t Strangles The Job Creators

Budget: The secretary of the Treasury says taxes must be raised on small business so the federal government can stay big. With that breathtaking statement, he helpfully mapped out the key difference between the parties.
While testifying Wednesday before the House Small Business Committee, Timothy Geithner told Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., that hiking taxes on small businesses is the only “alternative” that will allow “a balanced approach to reduce our fiscal deficits.”
“If you don’t touch revenues,” Geithner said, “you have to shrink the overall size of government programs, things like education, to levels that we could not accept as a country.”
Some factions just won’t accept shrinking the size of government. Most in them run in the same tight circles as Geithner. Never hearing anything other than support for increasing the size of government, they assume that’s what Americans want.
But quite a few Americans have been wanting to cut government for decades, and that number is growing as the almost intractable problems created by overspending have become more obvious.
From Social Security and Medicare to housing assistance and farm subsidies to, yes, even education, federal programs need to shrink or be eliminated. There’s not a single item in the budget, including defense, that can’t use some judicious trimming.
In fiscal 2011, Washington will spend more than $3.8 trillion, according to the government’s historical tables. The federal debt, caused by lawmakers’ habit of spending money they don’t have, will exceed $15 trillion by the Sept. 30 end of the 2011 fiscal year. Washington cannot tax its way out of this hole.
Yet Democrats never give up hope they can raise taxes, and this particular Democrat wants to slap higher rates on small business. This is an especially poor choice. Small businesses are America’s jobs engine.
Even more appalling is the fact Geithner didn’t back off his position when Ellmers told him that 64% of new jobs in this country are created by small businesses. In fact, he acknowledged that she is correct.
While the number Ellmers used is compelling, we believe the rate is actually higher, around 85%. We base this estimate on our own database of public companies, which shows that over the last 25 years, big businesses created no net new jobs. That leaves small business as virtually the only job creator.
Geithner’s unabashed statement helps explain the sorry situation in which America finds itself. But in so doing, he has also provided the clarity that voters will need when his boss comes up for re-election.

Incompetency abounds. More and more, it seems that stupidity is a dem trademark.

“If you don’t touch revenues,” Geithner said, “you have to shrink the overall size of government programs, things like education, to levels that we could not accept as a country.”

Who’s this “we” Timmy? It certainly isn’t the rest of the country beyond the Beltway. Shrinking, perhaps the complete elimination of the Department of Education is certainly on the table as far as “we” are concerned.

UPDATE: Obama met with Senator McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, concerning raising the debt ceiling. It did not go well for Obama. McConnell is showing some guts. I want Boehner to do the same.

Revenue vs. cuts in debt debate

President Barack Obama stepped back into deficit-reduction talks Monday, only to be greeted by a double-barrel blast from Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who peremptorily rejected any deal that would include the added revenues Obama wants together with spending cuts.

McConnell’s meeting with the president stretched more than an hour, but even before the two men sat down together, the Kentucky Republican had delivered a toughly worded speech on the Senate floor and posted an opinion piece on CNN.com demanding that “tax hikes” come off the table. Returning to the Capitol after his own shorter session with Obama on Monday morning, a sad-faced Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told POLITICO: “The issue isn’t what we’re willing to do. It’s what they [the Republicans] are willing to do.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57890.html#ixzz1QaSTZlzk

Repost: Would the world end if the US debt limit isn’t raised? No.

This was originally supposed to appear on Thursday, May 12th. Goggle/Blogger, in all their wonder, deleted it.  Fortunately, I found a copy.  Here it is as it was supposed to appear.

***

The default boogyman card is being played again.  The last time it was used was during the Continuing Resolution debate a month or so ago. RINO John Boehner swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.  The dems are playing it again to get the Debt Limit raised higher than the current $14.2 Trillion limit.

Austan Goolsbee, Chief Accountant of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, claims that the country would be in “instant default” if “we hit the debt limit.” 

Goolsbee Says Tying Debt Ceiling to Spending Is ‘Quite Insane’

May 11, 2011, 10:49 AM EDT

By John McCormick
May 11 (Bloomberg) — Linking efforts to reduce long-term federal deficits with a congressional vote to raise the government’s debt limit puts U.S. credit at risk, President Barack Obama’s chief economic adviser told a Chicago audience.
“To tie this to the debt limit is, in my view, quite insane,” Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said today to the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce and other business leaders.

Yes, I suppose to a lib, anything that would limit spending is insane.  The truth is that the government wouldn’t automatically default—unless Obama purposely did so.

You see, the US government still has an income. US Revenues for this current year are projected to be over $2.2Trillion.  The problem is the dems want to spend over $3.8Trillion.

Have you heard about these nuts who think that the world is going to end in May?

Which is to say, Austan Goolsbee is full of it. He told the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce: “If we hit the debt ceiling, we default.”
No, we don’t.
Debt service accounts for about 7 percent of federal spending. Current revenues will more than cover that, regardless of whether the debt ceiling is raised. We can pay our debts  — and our troops, too — out of present revenues. But if we fail to raise the debt ceiling, we’re going to have to economize on some other things: discretionary spending, for sure, but probably also Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. But here’s the thing: Any meaningful budget-reform deal is going to have to address discretionary spending, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, in the long term. There is no way around that. (Defense spending needs to be cut, too, but defense is a different thing from farm subsidies and NPR money: a core national priority. You don’t lump national defense in with national embarrassments such as the Small Business Administration or research grants for Obama’s magic unicorn-powered economy.)
Default? No.
In truth, the federal government expects to collect $2.2 trillion in revenue this year. The problem is that it wants to spend $3.8 trillion.
You can do a lot with $2.2 trillion. You can fund Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, debt service, unemployment, welfare, and national defense at their 2008 levels. My recollection of 2008 is that it was not exactly a time of Spartan fiscal discipline.
Funding the majority of the federal government at 2008 levels is not “default.” It’s not anything like default. It’s not in the same category of things, events, or concepts as default.
So, don’t buy what Austan Goolsbee is selling.
(Go here for the complete column.)
You’ll note in Willianson’s column, servicing the US debt is only 7% of Federal spending. Not servicing that debt is what would cause the government to default. Reaching the debt limit has nothing to do with forcing the government into default.  It’s how the remaining money is spent that determines whether the government defaults. There’s a lot that can be done with the existing revenue stream and still service that debt.  
Yes, there would have to be spending cuts.  That’s what has the libs all in a tizzy! If we revert to the 2008 budget (and if you have any memory of that time, you’ll remember that Bush wasn’t a miser and spent like a democrat,) we could reach that goal.
Will that happen?  It’s unlikely.  There are too many spineless RINOs, like Boehner, still in office.  They’ll roll-over and pass some taxes to get those “mean” MSM types of their backs. As long as they think it will be forgotten by election time, they think they can rollover without penalty.         

Am I being too pessimistic?  Perhaps. But when the ‘Pubs have control of the house and still elect a RINO like Boehner as Speaker of the House, the more I believe we need to make a full sweep and flush all the ‘Pubs out.
Perhaps it is time for a third party. It’s apparent the ‘Pubs aren’t listening.

A Necessary Evil?

I’ve heard these phrases more than once. “Credit cards are a necessity of modern life. You can’t survive without them. No one carries cash anymore.”  And, worst of all, “Instant money!”

No, credit cards aren’t, “instant money.”  It’s someone else’s money and they are allowing you to use it—for a fee. It’s called debt.

There was a report on Drudge today that eight million people have stopped using credit cards in the last year. That is a significant number—a reduction of credit card holders from 70 million down to 62 million. 

The AP report appears on one of Andrew Breitbart’s websites. It is written with a particular bias.  In one paragraph it states, “The Chicago company (credit reporting agency TransUnion) found that consumers in the subprime category, or those with low credit ratings, were believed to be without cards mostly because they were shut down by banks after payments fell behind or balances were written off.” 

The AP implies that it is banks that keep low income earners from having credit cards. They imply that banks should continue to provide “free money” to those unable to repay the debt.  

I disagree. Debt, by any other name, is still debt. Folks forget that 200 years ago or so, debtors could be imprisoned or placed into a form of slavery called indenture.  In the early years of the settlement of this continent, England provided colonist by indenturing them, either voluntary or involuntary, to pay for their passage to the New World.  Legally, there was a difference between those indentured and those enslaved.  In practice, that difference was often ignored.


The brief history lesson aside, being in debt is not a positive lifestyle nor is it a productive one.  All your resources are spent servicing your debt and bankruptcy, if it is allowed, is not a solution, only a postponement.


But what are you to do if you don’t want to carry a large roll of cash?  In some areas, that is an invitation to be robbed, or worse. 

The answer is debit cards.  A debit card can be used like a credit card, but the funds are drawn from your personal account—just like a check.  You manage your account just like a checking account.  In fact, my first debit card was called a “check card.”


The important difference is that the money used in a debit card transaction is YOUR money, not money borrowed from someone else.  Dave Ramsey has a radio show about how to manage, reduce and recover from debt.  If you listen to him, you’ll hear him advise an operation he calls a “plastectomy.” That is, cutting up your credit cards.  He approves, however, of using debit cards.


I admit, that Mrs. Crucis and I still have a VISA credit card.  We also have VISA debit cards and I have a VISA debit card on my credit union account. About the only thing I use credit cards for is gas for the cars.  We pay off our credit cards at the end of every month and one single charge for gas is easier to manage that keeping track of every gas receipt.  My wife is much better than I. She uses our debit card much more than I.  Frankly, I don’t remember our debit card PIN and most of my personal purchases are paid using my credit union debit card.


The bottom line to all this is that owning a credit card is not a necessity of life.  Even heavy business travelers often use a corporate card that bills the employer directly. (But Heaven help you if you lose a receipt!)


Like our federal government, we must manage our debt.  We just sent a new set of, hopefully, conservative Representatives to Congress to start managing the government’s debt.  We must do the same for ourselves.