Fred Jake
A certain Obama supporter keeps asking those who disagree with him, to give reasons some of us disagree with Obama’s budget. We are challenged to show him anything in Obamas budget we may specifically oppose. Then the individual makes a statement like this, Can you say with certainty it is something that he could control but chooses not to? Many budget items cannot be adjusted by the president.
First off, his assumption that Obama is stuck and has no choice but to do what the budget calls for? That is a really strange statement to make, after all it is President Obama’s budget. He never had to write it, he never had to send it to Congress, and he never had to sign it.
As for what I disagree with in Obama’s budget. Oh my, where do I begin? I’ll give a list of things that I have a problem with, but I also want to admit that there is more then I could write in short time of most peoples attention span.
To start with, when you read the Budget, the first thing that jumps out at you is that Obama’s budget uses the word “Users Fees” in many places one would expect to read the word taxes. It is quite a clever way of saying they are not increasing taxes, something liberals use every election year in California to get ballot measures passed that increase taxes. Problem is, I am old enough to remember that anytime the government takes money away from me it is a tax.
A User Fee Is A Tax! Got that everyone?
Now onto what I think needs to be eliminated from Obama’s budget.
1.) Bailing out the banks and the auto industry;
While not part of the budget it is still a bad idea that is just a waste of money that will do nothing to help the problem. We already see Obama saying the GM may go out of business anyway, and the banks are doing even worse after they got the bailouts. Obama and Bush both should have let the Banks and the Auto Industry fail. I accept Bush screwed that up, but just like a liberal, Obama had to do one better by coming along and loaning even more to them.
2.) The SCHIP program;
This a big government grab that is the basis for the Democrats health care takeover. They are increasing tobacco taxes to help pay for it. If tobacco is so bad, then ban the crap don’t tax it. They need smokers to help pay for the program. So as people do quit smoking the program gets underfunded. Then they need to find more money elsewhere. Just a socialist way of controlling people and acting like they care. If they really cared about the health of Americans, they would just ban tobacco products altogether. Then we wouldn’t need to help them when they do get ill, and the children would not grow up thinking smoking is cool, because their parents wouldn’t be smoking.
Before I move on, let me address another false statement by Obama that liberals like using these days. Obama claims that nationalizing the health care industry of the United States will NOT save the tax payers money. If anyone who thinks this way really believes nationalizing health care would save us money then they are under the influence of some strong drugs. Show me a country in Europe that has nationalized their health care and saved money. Doesn’t exist, they are all moving back towards a free market system because of all the money that is wasted. Not to mention the way the quality of the health care has plummeted in those countries. Even in Norway, whom the liberals have constantly used as an example of how well it works is starting to see huge problems as their population grows. Imagine a country the size of America trying to give 300 plus million people free health care.
When will you people look at the way the citizens of the countries with nationalized health care are really not happy with it. Just look little closer at Canada, who denies life saving operations to people who need them because the government says the quality of the remaining years of their life is not worth the cost. So now the government instead of the insurance industry is deciding who can and who cannot get treatment. I think I’ll take my chance with the insurance company.
3.) Spectrum User Fees;
All the new tax increases on the users of the licensed spectrum, ie… wireless carriers, broadcasters and other entities. It’s just going to cause layoffs and in the long run they will bring in less tax money then before. Ever read a story of how the city of New York raised the price of tickets to ride the subway and it increased their revenue? NOT!
Every time they raised rates to ride the subway people quit taking the subway and the city received less revenue. The same happens when you tax something. Look what happens when they raise taxes on cigarettes, people start quitting and thus less revenue come into the government coffers.
As bad an idea as the SCHIP program that taxes cigarettes to help fund it. You will see this problem in Obama’s budget repeated time and time again. They tax something to increase revenue to pay for something else and all they do is bring in less revenue and eventually they will come back and claim they need to raise taxes again so the program they started can continue. That’s all socialists know, tax and spend, then tax some more and spend some more.
4.) $646 Billion Cap-and-Trade Energy Tax;
First off, I understand liberals out there want to believe Al Gore is right, but the evidence proves otherwise. I disagree the global warming scheme and their prophet of doom. If anyone needs some good evidence that supports my thinking, just check out Anthony Watt’s evidence.
That being said, Obama’s energy taxes will devastate the economy, and put America at such a disadvantage to countries around the world the our children’s children will suffer greatly. This energy tax in Obama’s budget will cost American business an estimated $646 billiona tax they currently do not face, and a tax that would be passed on to the consumer, like all taxes. It will make virtually every other good more expensive. It is an explicit attempt to raise the cost of energy in this country. America will eventually be as messed up as France. and that is not a good thing.
5.) The Budget Hands out Billions to Agencies that Fund ACORN and other Community Organizing Groups;
The budget provides $4.5 billion for Department of Housing and Urban Developments (HUD) Community Development Block Grant Program. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), an activist group convicted of vote fraud and spearheading a campaign to trespass on and take over foreclosed properties, has historically received money from this program. Taxpayer dollars, rather than providing public services for Americans, might be funneled through HUD to groups like ACORN. That money comes on top of what ACORN and other groups that helped to elect the President are already receiving from the stimulus bill and omnibus. This stimulus bill gives as much a $5.2 billion to ACORN.
6.) The Budget Increases the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) funding after It Helped Cause the Financial Crisis;
Talk about balls. The very department that caused the meltdown of the housing financial industry, which caused the economy to crash is getting more money. These guys should all go to jail long with Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, Chuck Schumer, and every other politician, regardless of the party, that stood in George Bush’s way of regulating Fanny May and Freddeie Mac a couple of years ago when the problem first surfaced.
By driving up the demand for housing through loan guarantees for the unqualified, HUD contributed to the housing bubble that caused housing prices to reach astronomical heights. The program should be scrapped. However, instead of scrapping the whole program Obama’s budget increase it funding. Incredible, like I said talk about balls.
7.) Obama’s Budget spends billions on Pell Grants while turning them into Entitlements.
Federal subsidies for post secondary education will get an additional $15.6 billion over and above the already expected increases they were going to get under George Bush’s budget of last year. Last time I checked, 85% of college graduates do not work in a job that uses their education they received in college. This is nothing more than an indoctrination program to create mind numb brainless socialists.
So we have Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and GW’s Prescription Drug program for the elderly all threatening to bankrupt the country, and what does Obama do? He decides to increase funding and make all Pell Grants a new form of entitlement. That will now be a part of the annual budget our children’s children will be forced to pay. How long have we been talking about social security not being solvent because the money is used for other programs, and now we have more.
8.) Obama’s budget creates more cheap credit
By providing $17.5 billion for loan guarantees to new businesses, the government is going to create another bubble similar to the Housing industry bubble it created. Any bets on how long it is before it does the same thing the housing industry bubble did? With the government spending billions to finance small businesses, it is just a matter of time that those who are beholding to the government for their creation will be in front of congress with their hat in hand .
Like the banks and the auto industry before them, they will have to close and lay off the workers hired by the governments money if they do not get more money. See a circular hell being created here? The Soviet Union tried this type of Central planning for 70 years, and it eventually caved in under its own weight. 70 years later, they could not even produce enough toilet paper for the people. That may make One Square Sharyl Crowe happy, but I doubt Americans will like it much. (Sorry OneVike, but I couldn’t resist using your often used quote)
There are other items I have a problem with in Obama’s budget, but I’ll sum it up with this statement;
The CBO predicts that Obama’s policies will cause government spending to swell above historic levels even after his costly programs to alleviate the recession and shore up the financial system have ended. The result they wrote is that by 2019 the US national debt would be about 82 per cent of GDP – about double where it is today. I again point to the fact that historically the CBO underestimates what the actual cost ends up being.
One of the things that has helped put us in this bind is the continuing deficit spending by our elected officials at the local, state and federal levels of government. Many liberals like to lay the blame on Ronald Reagan as if he were the first President to ever run a deficit. These people hate history when it does not support their beliefs. Tina and OneVike made a great observation about deficit spending. Congress hardly ever gets the blame, but history shows us that otherwise.
In the “80”s a Democrat Congress broke a promise they made with Ronald Reagan, and refused to cut spending when Reagan cut taxes. History shows us that when Republicans controlled Congress the budgets always went down or stayed the same as the prior administrations. Examples are Eisenhower and Clinton, who both had Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. I would have loved to see how things would have been if Ronald had a Republican Congress. ( Alas we shall never know)
There is one other point I would like to make, and it is directed towards some friends of mine who like to hunt.
Many pro 2nd amendment hunters and target shooters love there guns and also vote for Democrats. Well John Conyers of Michigan also likes his hunting and his guns, along with Diane Feinstein. John Conyers is even a member of the NRA and has been a guest speaker at some of their events. Problem is he votes for laws that negatively effect the 2nd amendment. Believe me my friends, Obama and the leftists he is appointing to the various cabinets do not believe the 2nd amendment should be kept.
Have you heard how his administration is now working with Pelosi to set in motion the registration of all weapons. And His buddies in the environmental movement are working with him to curb the use of federal lands for hunting as I write this. So don’t think that just because you like to play with guns that you understand the ramifications of putting people like Obama in power.