Obama’s Big Economy Speech: No Hope, No Change

By Ben Shapiro | June 14, 2012 |  Breitbart News

President Obama’s campaign speech on the economy today was an utter disaster for him. It was a bromide of tired old arguments, pathetic blame-placing, and shopworn con tricks. And even liberals like Jonathan Alter had to admit that it was, overall, a dramatic failure.

The Democrat Crime Family War

By Rush Limbaugh | June 6, 2012 | RushLimbaugh.com

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We got Bill Clinton going rogue again, even bigger and even better. And the “criminal enterprise” known as the Democrat Party… Well, “criminal enterprise,” in quotes. Think of it as a mob family. Think of the Democrat Party as a mob family with the head honcho in Chicago.

George Will Schools Krugman on Gov. Walker: $3 Billion Deficit ‘He Inherited’ Has ‘Become a Surplus’ [Video]

By Noel Sheppard | June 03, 2012 | Newsbusters

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman got another much-needed education from syndicated columnist George Will on ABC’s This Week Sunday.

After Krugman impugned Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wisc.) for his so-called “fiscal irresponsibility,” Will simply and quite accurately responded, “A more than $3 billion budget that he inherited, a deficit, has now become a surplus” (video follows with transcript and commentary):

The Road to Recall: One Left-Wing Loss After Another in Wisconsin

By Joel B. Pollak | June 1, 2012 | Breitbart News

Tuesday’s recall election in Wisconsin is the culmination of a long political campaign waged by the left to reverse the results of the watershed 2010 election, and to prevent reforms that might be imitated elsewhere. These included: tax cuts for job-creating businesses, spending reductions to turn deficits into surplus, and collective bargaining reforms that freed state and local governments from the onerous cost of union benefits.

Ignoring the Crisis: Philadelphia Schools Are Crumbling

By Ellen Brown | May 18, 2012 | Truthout

An abandoned School. (Photo: Wout / Flickr)

Click here to support news free of corporate influence by donating to Truthout.

“You will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out.
You will not be able to skip out for beer during commercials,
Because the revolution will not be televised…. 
The revolution will be live.” -From the 1970s hit song by Gil Scott-Heron, “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised”

Last week, the city of Philadelphia’s school system announced that it expects to close 40 public schools next year and 64 schools by 2017. The school district expects to lose 40 percent of its current enrollment and thousands of experienced, qualified teachers.

But corporate media in other cities made no mention of these massive school closings – nor of those in Chicago, Atlanta or New York City. Even in the Philadelphia media, the voices of the parents, students and teachers who will suffer were omitted from most accounts.

It’s all about balancing the budgets of cities that have lost revenues from the economic downturn. Supposedly, there is simply no money for the luxury of providing an education for the people.

Bill Clinton Undercuts Obama, Calls for Middle Class Tax Increase

By Rush Limbaugh | May 16, 2012 | RushLimbaugh.com

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: And our old buddy Bill Clinton, who, by the way, Bill Clinton’s back, and Bill Clinton’s back calling for tax increases on the middle class, ladies and gentlemen.  It’s right here in The Politico.

“Bill Clinton said Tuesday that President Barack Obama’s goal of hiking taxes on the rich alone is not enough to solve the country’s fiscal woes and suggested that middle class Americans must also eventually contribute more.” (imitating Clinton) “Look, this is just me now.  I’m not speaking for the White House.  I think you could tax me, you know, Hillary and I, we’re rich now, and I think you could tax me at a hundred percent and you wouldn’t balance that old budget.  The fact of the matter is you could tax me, you could tax Limbaugh, you could tax O’Reilly, you could tax everybody out there, you could tax me and Hillary, and you still wouldn’t balance the budget.  We are all gonna have to contribute to this.  And if middle-class people’s wages were going up again, and we had some growth in the economy, I don’t think they would object to going back to tax rates of when I was president.”

Now, is this guy doing Obama any favors here?  Bill Clinton comes out, calls for tax increases on the middle class.  Let’s take the rates back to when he was president.  I mean what is Obama doing?  Obama’s out there on this class envy tour trying to make everybody believe that the reason we have an economic problem is because we have rich people in the first place.  The second thing is, to solve it we’ve gotta tax ’em, we gotta tax that 1%.  They are the problem.

Here comes our old buddy Bill Clinton. (imitating Clinton) “Well, you know, this is just me speaking.  I mean, I’m not speaking for the White House, but I’m telling you, you could tax me, you could take everything I’ve got and that’s not gonna balance the budget. You can tax all the rich people I know, you could tax Harvey Weinstein, you could tax Spielberg, every one of these people. You could tax Will Smith and you’re still not gonna balance the budget.” I mean, that is the exact opposite message Obama wants, is it not?

And then to close it out by saying, “I think the middle class, if they had some income, they wouldn’t object to paying taxes.”  If they had some income.  If we had some growth to the economy, the middle class wouldn’t mind. Obama’s out there trying to tell the middle class they’re not gonna pay anything.  They’re gonna get and get.  They’re gonna have nothing but benefits.  That’s Obama’s message.  Here comes old Bill.  “Hey, you can tax me all you want, ain’t gonna close the budget.”  In other words, “You know what?  Obama doesn’t know what he’s talking about.  He’s telling you that he can raise taxes on the rich, but it ain’t gonna fix the budget.  He’s gonna have to raise taxes on you.” The thing is, Clinton’s more right than he’s wrong here.  That’s the irony here is that Clinton’s exactly right. You could take everything the rich have and you wouldn’t balance the budget, ever, and if you took everything the rich have, you can only do it once.  By definition, they’ve got no more.

“Yes, Mr. Limbaugh, but they will earn it next year.” Why, Mr. New Castrati, if you take everything they’ve got, why go earn any more of it if it’s all gonna be taken?  You can only take it one time.  Still don’t balance the budget. We gotta raise taxes on the middle class.  And we got it in Ed Klein’s book, Bill wants Hillary to run for president.  He wants Hillary back in there. He wants back in there.  The Politico says here, “The former president’s remarks about his own tax rate seemed to be a reference to Obama’s ‘Buffett Rule,’ which proposes higher taxes for the wealthiest Americans. Clinton asserted that when he was at the White House, ‘very few people’ thought they were being overtaxed.” (laughing)  I know it’s absolutely ridiculous. Clinton is the one who called Obama an amateur, and that’s
the title of Klein’s book.

It was Clinton that called Obama an amateur.  So now he’s out there attacking the Buffett Rule. He’s attacking Obama’s class envy.  He’s telling the middle class that he knows that they wouldn’t object to a tax increase if they had any income.  Clinton said, “Look, we can’t be in a position here where one of the negotiating partners says that that’s not negotiable. I mean, not only will we not raise taxes, we want the Bush tax cuts and we want more tax cuts and we want the right to disregard what the CBO says our budget — you can’t do that.  It’s hard to have a deal if there’s no arbiter.”  Looks to me like — and of course, I could be wrong — it looks to me like Clinton seems to differ on just about every Obama policy.  And yet he’s out there campaigning for him. We got Clinton saying this.  Of course you don’t need to hear Clinton say it; you just heard me do it.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Prediction: Hillary Clinton will be VP (glennbeck.com)
• Romney’s lamest gambit yet (salon.com)
• Obama, Clintons deepen political and policy ties (dailycaller.com)
• Bill Clinton Said President Obama Is Incompetent (inquisitr.com)
• Man who won landslide in 2008: An election is bound to be tight when you have a name like mine (hotair.com)
• Hunger Games Wisdom (spectator.org)
• BREAKING: President Clinton Calls Obama “Incompetent” and “Amateur” (illuminati360.wordpress.com)
• Bill Clinton dubbed Obama ‘incompetent’, urged Hillary to run for presidency: Book (mytechnologyworld9.blogspot.in)
• New theory: Maybe Obama’s too smart and sensitive to be a good president (hotair.com)
• Romney goes after Obama’s core campaign message (dailycaller.com)
• The Buffet Rule (spectator.org)
• Open Thread: Mitt Romney, Busybody (skydancingblog.com)

Obama Campaign: Romney Would Ruin Life of Composite Woman

By Ben Shapiro | May 3, 2012| Breitbart

President Obama’s campaign re-election website has put up a public relations initiative called “The Life of Julia.” The goal of this initiative: to compare “how President Obama’s policies would help one woman over her lifetime – and how Mitt Romney would change her story.” It’s propaganda of the worst order. It’s a typical Obama scare tactic. And worst of all, it assumes that Julia will remain dependent on the government her entire life.

Julia’s story begins when she’s 3. Thanks to President Obama, the website says:

Julia is enrolled in a Head Start program to help get her ready for school. Because of steps President Obama has taken to improve programs like this one, Julia joins thousands of students across the country who will start kindergarten ready to learn and succeed.

Well, no. Head Start has been one of the worst failures of the federal government. The Department of Health and Human Services itself found that the government has invested $150 billion in Head Start since 1965 … and that has yielded precisely zero impact for the kids involved. But according to Obama, that dastardly Romney fellow would cut Head Start by 20%. The horror, the horror!

Apparently, nothing happens in Julia’s life until she’s 17. There’s a reason for that – America’s public school system is an utter failure, and Obama knows it. But Obama says that Julia at age 17 is flourishing (presumably she isn’t one of the approximately 25 percent of all students who drop out of school, or one of the 40 percent of black or Hispanic students who do so). Here’s Julia’s life under Obama at 17:

Julia takes the SAT and is on track to start her college applications. Her high school is part of the Race to the Top program, implemented by President Obama. Their new college- and career-ready standards mean Julia can take the classes she needs to do well.

Julia must be one of the lucky ones to get into a charter school. If she goes to one of America’s normal public schools, this is a pipe dream. But according to Obama, nasty Romney would cut funding for public education “to pay for tax cuts to millionaires.” Because what we need is more education spending, not less – even while districts like the Los Angeles Unified School District expend about $30,000 per year per student to achieve the worst results in the nation.

By age 18, Julia’s taking out college loans – with the help of the taxpayer:

As she prepares for her first semester of college, Julia and her family qualify for President Obama’s American Opportunity Tax Credit – worth up to $10,000 over four years. Julia is also one of millions of students who receive a Pell Grant to help put a college education within reach.

So Julia majors in lesbian dance at one of our nation’s colleges. Who pays? Obama doesn’t say.

At age 22, Julia undergoes surgery:

It is thankfully covered by her insurance due to a provision in health care reform that lets her stay on her parents’ coverage until she turns 26.

Because God knows that this independent young woman can’t buy her own health care, obtain it through her college, or find another way to pay for her surgery. Also, what kind of surgery is this? Is it elective? Is it required? Who knows? And let’s not mention that the average 22-year-old isn’t receiving surgery. Obamacare hurts Julia because she’s subsidizing her parents, since she has to pay higher costs once she obtains her own insurance.

At 23, Julia “starts her career as a web designer.” This assumes she will have a job in the private sector under Obama. Or, that she’s going to be hired to design programs like “The Life of Julia.”

Because of steps like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Julia is one of millions of women across the country who knows she’ll always be able to stand up for her right to equal pay.

She can sue people. Julia’s friends, the trial lawyers, are overjoyed!

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• The Life of Julia – a.k.a., how NOT to live (theblaze.com)
• Obama woos ‘Julia,’ other single women with promise of lifelong subsidies (dailycaller.com)
• Obama Administration Really Pitching Itself to Incompetent Women Needing Almost Constant State Assistance (minx.cc)
• Conservatives Are Flipping Out Over ‘Julia,’ Obama’s Mythical Poster Girl For His Policies On Women (businessinsider.com)
• Life of Julia Takes a Woman Through an Obama or Romney America (blogher.com)
• Who the hell is Julia and why am I paying for her whole life? (humanevents.com)
• Meet Julia, the new composite woman in Obama’s life (twitchy.com)
• DAVID HARSANYI: Who The Hell Is Julia, And Why Am I Paying For Her Whole Life? In the new Barack… (pjmedia.com)
• Obama ‘Julia’ web tool courting women draws GOP scorn on Twitter (thehill.com)
• The life of Barack Obama’s ‘Julia’ gets curiouser and curiouser! (twitchy.com)

Liberal Bias Starts in High School Economics Textbooks

By Charlie Kirk | April 27, 2012 | Breitbart

All across the country, students are studying for Advanced Placement exams coming in the middle of May. Students in AP Economics are taught with Krugman’s Economics for AP by Margaret Ray and David A. Anderson, adapted from Paul Krugman and Robin Wells’ Economics (Second Edition). Our public education system is supposedly one without bias, a place where any student can come and learn without any form of partisanship. Instead, our classrooms are slowly becoming political lecture halls with teachers being pawns to further the doctrine of liberalism and “equality.”

Throughout the entire textbook, there are historical, factual, and statistical distortions. For example, Chapter 36 (“The modern macroeconomic consensus”) contains 16 sweeping generalizations such as: “Nearly all macroeconomists now agree… There is now a broad consensus… Today, most macroeconomists believe… Almost all macroeconomists now accept…” (pp. 355-58). None of these assertions are backed up with even a single citation. If a student were to submit an essay with such disregard for basic evidence, it would ensure a failing grade.

I find it troubling Krugman’s Economics for AP concludes that Reagan’s “supply-side economics is generally dismissed by economic researchers. The main reason for this dismissal is lack of evidence.” Referring to economic growth and output, our textbook goes on to state there was “no sign of an acceleration in growth after the Reagan tax cuts.”

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Krugman: “Keynesians have been completely right, Austerians utterly wrong” (leftfootforward.org)
• Paul Krugman: Death of a Fairy Tale (economistsview.typepad.com)
• Economy Killers | Paul Krugman & Robin Wells | Salon | 15 April 2012 (news.salon.com)
• Is It True that Economists Often Mistake Beauty for Truth? (coordinationproblem.org)
• Paul Krugman: The Big Wrong (mgptpt.wordpress.com)
• CITI: In A Parallel Universe Where Paul Krugman Is Fed Chairman… (businessinsider.com)
• “With How Little Wisdom The World Is Governed” (duanegraham.wordpress.com)
• Krugman and ideology once more (cafehayek.com)
• Inequality and Keynesian Economics (whynationsfail.com)
• Death of a Fairy Tale (readersupportednews.org)

Here are some real ‘Reagan Rules’ for Obama

By James Pethokoukis | April 11, 2012 | The American

Apparently President Obama is joking that he’s willing to change the name of the Buffett Rule to the Reagan Rule if that’s what it takes to get it through Congress.  But there are already so many Reagan rules — and Obama is following none of them. Here are few Reagan Rules the president would be wise to follow:

1. Blame government, not business.

Reagan: “The people have not created this disaster in our economy; the federal government has. It has overspent, overestimated, and over regulated. It has failed to deliver services within the revenues it should be allowed to raise from taxes … At the same time, the federal government has cynically told us that high taxes on business will in some way “solve” the problem and allow the average taxpayer to pay less. Well, business is not a taxpayer, it is a tax collector. Business has to pass its tax burden on to the customer as part of the cost of doing business. You and I pay the taxes imposed on business every time we go to the store. Only people pay taxes and it is political demagoguery or economic illiteracy to try and tell us otherwise.”

2. Cut taxes and make the safety net more efficient.

Reagan: “The key to restoring the health of the economy lies in cutting taxes. At the same time, we need to get the waste out of federal spending. This does not mean sacrificing essential services, nor do we need to destroy the system of benefits which flow to the poor, the elderly, the sick and the handicapped. We have long since committed ourselves, as a people, to help those among us who cannot take care of themselves. But the federal government has proven to be the costliest and most inefficient provider of such help we could possibly have.”

3. Get government under control.

Reagan: “We must put an end to the arrogance of a federal establishment which accepts no blame for our condition, cannot be relied upon to give us a fair estimate of our situation and utterly refuses to live within its means. I will not accept the supposed “wisdom” which has it that the federal bureaucracy has become so powerful that it can no longer be changed or controlled by any administration. As President I would use every power at my command to make the federal establishment respond to the will and the collective wishes of the people. We must force the entire federal bureaucracy to live in the real world of reduced spending, streamlined functions and accountability to the people it serves. ”

4. Obey the U.S. Constitution.

Reagan: “The 10th article of the Bill of Rights is explicit in pointing out that the federal government should do only those things specifically called for in the Constitution. All others shall remain with the states or the people. We haven’t been observing that 10th article of late. The federal government has taken on functions it was never intended to perform and which it does not perform well. There should be a planned, orderly transfer of such functions to states and communities and a transfer with them of the sources of taxation to pay for them.”

5. Don’t forget to cut taxes.

Reagan: “By reducing federal tax rates where they discourage individual initiative—especially personal income tax rates—we can restore incentives, invite greater economic growth and at the same time help give us better government instead of bigger government. … In short, a punitive tax system must be replaced by one that restores incentive for the worker and for industry; a system that rewards initiative and effort and encourages thrift.”

6. Don’t hate fossil fuels. 

Reagan: Our country was built on cheap energy. Today, energy is not cheap and we face the prospect that some forms of energy may soon not be available at all. …  We need more energy and that means diversifying our sources of supply away from the OPEC countries. Yes, it means more efficient automobiles. But it also means more exploration and development of oil and natural gas here in our own country. The only way to free ourselves from the monopoly pricing power of OPEC is to be less dependent on outside sources of fuel.

The answer obvious to anyone except those in the administration, it seems, is more domestic production of oil and gas. We must also have wider use of nuclear power within strict safety rules, of course. There must be more spending by the energy industries on research and development of substitutes for fossil fuels.

In years to come solar energy may provide much of the answer but for the next two or three decades we must do such things as master the chemistry of coal. Putting the market system to work for these objectives is an essential first step for their achievement. Additional multi-billion dollar federal bureaus and programs are not the answer.

Read the full article here.

Related Articles

• Obama: We Should Rename ‘Buffett Rule’ To ‘Reagan Rule’ (washington.cbslocal.com)
• The Buffett Rule (aka The Reagan Rule) (whitehouse.gov)
• Here are some real ‘Reagan Rules’ for Obama (tarpon.wordpress.com)
• Ronald Reagan supported the ‘Buffett Rule’ in his day (dailykos.com)
• Buffett Rule gets support from Reagan (dontmesswithtaxes.typepad.com)
• Obozo Has Gone Plumb Loco! (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
• Obama Re-Branding “Buffett Rule”: Call it the “Reagan Rule” Now (inquisitr.com)
• “We could call it the Reagan Rule instead of the Buffett Rule. I’m not the first president to…” (shortformblog.com)
• Hump Day Link-Around – Reagan Would Have Loathed The Buffet Ruse (nicedeb.wordpress.com)
• Obama: Buffett Rule Could Also be “Reagan Rule” (alan.com)

The Ryan Test: Demagoguery Versus Ideas

August 12, 2012 By John Malcolm Leave a Comment

By Jonathan S. Tobin | August 11, 2012 | Commentary Magazine As John wrote earlier today, liberals are convinced that Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan to be his running mate offers them a golden opportunity to savage the Republicans about the Wisconsin congressman’s budget plans. Predictably, the New York Times delivered one of the first such salvos in its editorial posted […]

Smoking Obama’s Crack and Yearning for the Mud

August 12, 2012 By John Malcolm Leave a Comment

By Vanderleun | August 10, 2012 | American Digest [From 2008. Only the names have been changed because the target has changed.] This downward flight of intellectuals has been going on ever since the Romantic movement began its counter-revolution a couple hundred years ago. No matter how much they flap their lips it’s a fall, not […]