Archive for the ‘obama’ Category

I am the first to admit that I don’t know everything there is to know about this whole deficit ceiling, but I do understand good, American logic. And, boy, did John Boehner hit the nail on the head with this one, explaining why House Republicans should support his deficit-reduction plan:

Barack Obama hates it. Harry Reid hates it. Nancy Pelosi hates it.

That’s all I need to know. If they hate it, then I love it.

Of course, the bill won’t pass without the support of and Dumbocrats and Obama, but there are more important things than saving the economy of the United States and the world–and that is standing up for our principles.

If we don’t cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security now, then when will we? Through a normal legislative process? Yeah, you’ll get the liberal loonies to sign off on cutting government handouts. We need to do it now, when they’re scared.

God bless America.


Roughly 80% of Americans believe that taxes should be increased on millionaires as part of any debt-reduction package.

This means two things:

  • 80% of Americans are wrong. (I don’t know how many times I have to say it, but ALL TAXES ARE EVIL.)
  • John Boehner and Michelle Bachmann are true leaders! Any elected officials that take the correct stand (no new taxes for millionaires) regardless of a political risk are the true leaders.

Boehner Finally Stands Tall

Boehner has shown signs of leaning toward the socialist left in this country by initially agreeing to cut/revenue ratio of 4 to 1 in debt-reduction talks with President Obama. That means that a reduction in deficits would be only 75% cuts in expenditures (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) and a whopping 25% in increased revenues (code for raising tax rates for the rich and corporations to levels of 10 years ago–a radical idea).

The good news, however, is that Boehner refused to even talk about going to the truly socialist position of a 3 to 1 ratio by walking away from talks with Obama today. Boehner had already compromised his beliefs by moving 25% toward Obama’s position–how could he be expected to move 33% in Obama’s direction?

Just to be clear: Obama thought that it would be fair to have revenue increases account for a full 1/3 of deficit reduction, while having the rest of the debt reduction (including cuts to handout programs like Social Security and Medicare) represent only 2/3 of deficit reduction.

If Boehner had let Obama get away with that, the next thing you know Obama would want a 50/50 compromise. Can you imagine the uproar from the Tea Party?

Bachmann Has Right Idea: Tax the Poor!!!

I know that I said in the introduction that all taxes were evil, but to clarify, I was talking about all taxes on the rich and corporations. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having the poor pay higher taxes, which is what Michelle Bachmann wants to see.

A significant portion of Americans makes so little money that their standard deductions and deductions on mortgage interest, etc., are high enough that they owe no federal taxes!!

In other words, they work the system by picking jobs with poor pay just so they don’t have to pay taxes.

That is simply not fair. The system should be changed so that they have to pay their taxes first; then, if they have some money left, they can pay for children, food, housing, etc.

Not Popular, But Correct

I know that taxing the poor instead of the rich is not be a popular idea, but it’s the right thing to do.

You never want punish anyone who might possibly someday consider taking a small portion of their money and possibly investing it into a business that might eventually create additional jobs by placing any kind of a tax burden on them. Ask Grover Norquist.

Corporations should be tax free. It’s the same with the rich who might someday want to start a corporation.

Tax the poor instead, especially if they’re going to continue to insist on luxuries like Social Security, Medicare, and public schools.

It’s common sense–and some leaders are bright enough to realize it.

I think that you can learn as much from those who you disagree with as those who you revere, which is why I sometimes read subversive sites like Daily Kos and Talking Points Memo, and a recent “Kos” blog gives great insight as to why the Debt Ceiling vote is a win-win for Republicans.

They, of course, do it in a whiny liberal way, but I can explain it in a common sense, conservative way:


Republicans, especially the dynamic Representative John Boehner (pronounced Baner, not the tasteless name that some Dumbocrats like to use), want to use the upcoming debt ceiling vote as leverage to get spending cuts.

For the record, the debt ceiling has been raised every single year for decades (I believe), and the vote has never had any strings attached in the past because of the importance of the vote. Leave it to this bright Republican group to change all of that!

Failing to raise the debt ceiling means that the U.S. government could default on its bills to other countries, sending the national economy (and global economy as a domino effect) into a disastrous tailspin, including (but not limited to) a potentially unmatched stock market crash (including the loss of personal income and retirement funds for nearly all Americans) and destroying the country”s credit in the future.

That might sound scary, but what game of chicken doesn’t? And the victor, no matter what, will be the Republican party.

Budget Cuts

One of the big advantages that us conservatives have is that Democrats are big, whiny wimps.

As the Republican leaders pressure the Democrats for budget cuts to social programs like Medicare and Social Security, Democrats will yield more quickly than a 99-year-old bicyclist on the Daytona 500 track.

Why? Because they’re afraid of economic disasters.

This will be a clear win for us. Cuts will be made in popular programs (something that the liberal media has convinced most think Americans is a dumb idea), and it will be a bi-partisan effort. Democrats will share the blame for cutting something they support!

Nice job, Johnny!!

Global Economic Disaster

The other possibility is that the Democrats don’t fold and the entire global economy suffers a horrific blow, effectively leaving the U.S. in a rubble of economic despair.

Of course, this will happen during President Obama’s term, and whoever the conservative nominee is (Can you say Herman Cain?) will rise out of the rubble to become president of the United States. It will be like a John Wayne movie.

The conservative would be president during a time without any financial resources, setting the stage for more cuts in social programs.

God Bless America!!!! Either way, us conservatives are the winners!

This article (Congress Mulls Cuts to Food Stamps Program Amid Record Number of Recipients) highlights the mistaken philosophy of the Democrats (Dumbocrats if you ask me) when it comes to finances.

The article points out that Republicans want to cut the food stamp program while the president’s budget wants to increase the amount of money spent on the food stamp program.

Increase the food stamp program? Can you say socialism?

If you give those people money (which is what a food stamp is), they’re going to immediately put that money in the hands of local grocery stores. All it will do is provide a family in desperate need with food and give local businesses (and the companies who provide the businesses with the food products, such as food manufacturers and farmers) money during difficult financial times. In other words, the money won’t “create” anything.

That sounds like a government handout to me.

If, instead, you give another tax cut to the rich, like conservatives would like to do, then the money will go straight toward creating jobs. It’s not a direct process since some of the money will be added to existing profit or buried in tax-free shelters, but some of it will be invested into the economy. A significant portion of that will be the global economy, not the national or local economy, but a little of it might eventually end up creating a job in the neighborhood where the food stamp recipient lives. Then, one person wouldn’t need food stamps.

That sounds like Reaganomics 101. Sign me up for that class.

On complicated issues, I look to my leaders for guidance. I have two general rules: if diehard conservatives support something, so do I, and if Obama, Senator Reid, and Congresswoman Pelosi like something, I hate it.

So where do I stand on wiretapping associated with the Patriot Act?

At first, President Bush liked it (boy, did he like it), and liberals hated it. Therefore, I loved it.

Now, President Obama likes it (yeah, that surprised me, too) and Senator Reid likes it (I was shocked by that one!). Further, conservative hero Rand Paul hates it. Therefore, I guess I don’t like it any longer.

I just wish I knew why.

Memorial Day represents freedom, patriotism, and supporting the troops.

In other words, liberals must hate that day because they hate all of those things.

All the whiny liberals do is talk about how we shouldn’t be in Iraq because they think there was no threat to the U.S. and how we should bring home the troops now that the Bush-era policy changes led to the killing of bin Laden. I’m not saying that Obama doesn’t deserve some credit, but if you listen to the media reports, you’d think that Obama–and not Bush–was responsible for getting bin Laden.

Ridiculous. Bush just gets credit for the bad things.

Us conservatives know that we needed to stop Hussein before the mushroom cloud was over the U.S., and we think we should stay in Afghanistan until all of the terrorists are gone. I mean, that can’t take that much longer, right? It’s only been 10 years. These things take time.

Happy Memorial Day everyone.