Michael Reagan, FloydReports.com
Like everybody else, presidents have birthdays and have a right to celebrate them and invite others to join them in the festivities. But taking advantage of the occasion to bash the rich and then charge some of them a whopping $40,000 to be able to sit near him as he observes his birthday is nothing short of outrageous.
The only thing President Obama excels in is fundraising — after all, when a president puts the arm on you, you can hardly say no. And the president has been putting the arm on a lot of his rich friends lately and raising big bucks for his upcoming reelection campaign. It’s a shame he can’t create jobs as efficiently as he raises money for himself. If he did I might even vote for him. However, he doesn’t, and so I won’t.
He should quit blaming the rich for being successful and take a look in the mirror. Instead of quoting my father to justify himself and his shocking incompetence he should try to imitate my Dad and try to govern as well as my Dad did.
In barely two years he has driven the economy into a ditch, yet has the gall to blame our economic troubles on President Bush, who has been out of office for two years. Moreover, during the last four years of the Bush presidency, Congress — which controls the purse strings and thus the economy — was controlled by the Democrats. It wasn’t George W. Bush alone who overspent; it was the Democrats on Capitol Hill who did their best to imitate the most drunken of the legendary drunken sailors.
“Spend and elect” has long been the policy….
Dr. Paul Kengor, FloydReports.com
I just read two very interesting articles on the U.S. economy, written from historical perspectives. They compelled me to share my own historical perspective. And what I want to say is more about our changing culture than our economy.
One of the articles, by Julie Crawshaw of MoneyNews.com, notes that the “Misery Index”—the combined unemployment and inflation rates—made infamous under President Jimmy Carter, has hit a 28-year high. It’s also 62 percent higher than when President Obama took office.
But that’s nothing compared to Mort Zuckerman’s article in U.S. News & World Report. Zuckerman measures the current situation against the Great Depression. He writes:
The Great Recession has now earned the dubious right of being compared to the Great Depression. In the face of the most stimulative fiscal and monetary policies in our history, we have experienced the loss of over 7 million jobs, wiping out every job gained since the year 2000. From the moment the Obama administration came into office, there have been no net increases in full-time jobs, only in part-time jobs. This is contrary to all previous recessions. Employers are not recalling the workers they laid off…. We now have more idle men and women than at any time since the Great Depression.
Zuckerman is a perceptive writer who looks at economies from a historical perspective. In my comparative politics course at Grove City College, I use his article on the Russian collapse in the 1990s, which Zuckerman showed was worse than our Great Depression.
I can’t say we’re teetering on that precipice, but Zuckerman’s article got me thinking: Imagine if America today experienced an economic catastrophe similar to the 1930s. How would you survive?
William J. Olson, FloydReports.com
There once was a time that elected leaders wanted to be seen as powerful to gain the confidence of their constituents. But many House Republicans, who now have in their hands total power to end runaway government once and for all, are feigning powerlessness.
These House Republicans claim to be just one-third of the legislative process, unable to achieve anything useful without compromise and a bipartisan consensus. They grouse that the Democrats in the Senate and President Obama are forcing them to settle for what they can get in exchange for an inevitable and necessary increase in the debt limit. They claim to need even greater electoral victories in 2012 before they can stop the spending.
The truth is that House Republicans already hold all the cards. The debt ceiling is already fixed in law, and will remain fixed unless they capitulate. Rather than just saying no to an increase in the debt limit which would end deficit spending, the GOP has developed “Cut, Cap, and Balance” which it sells as a principled proposal. Yet, with CC&B, the House Republicans propose to end the deficit spending by the curious method of increasing the national debt by $2.4 trillion (almost 17 percent) to $16.7 trillion.
In increasing the debt ceiling, the House Republicans leaders are doing what comes naturally. The House leadership historically has not wanted to stop spending — with entitlements like Medicare Part D they have used our own money to buy our votes just like the Democrats. The motivation behind CC&B is not about cutting current spending, capping future spending, or balancing the budget — it’s about what it’s always been about — the politics of reelection.
It could be that the House Republicans are acting out of fear that in holding fast to principle they would not be seen as being “responsible” in the eyes of the media and Wall Street….