Monday, October 1, 2012

Obama's deficit plan: Even he can't believe this stuff, can he?

I just blew a gasket watching an Obama commercial describing his four-point plan for America. I don't care if it comes from the "Right" or if it comes from the "Left," I hate insincerity and downright distortion of the facts. I'm constantly emailing back to my conservative friends that the 3.8% Medicare tax will not be levied on the sale of a $100,000 house. Stop sending me this ridiculous email.

In this case, President Obama's direct appeal to the voters, looking right into the camera, is second only to the "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" comment for its apparent sincerity and truthfulness. This guy is a master of making us believe things that are so obviously distortions... If we would only think about them for a minute.

I'll focus on Point 4 of his plan, which is so deep in male bovine manure that my boots started filling up while watching this ad.

Here it is:

"A balanced plan to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade. On top of the trillion in spending we've already cut, I'd ask the wealthy to pay a little more. And as we end the war in Afghanistan, let's apply half the savings to pay down our debt and use the rest for some nation building right here at home."

Let's start with the $4 trillion. The fact is that reducing the deficit by $4 trillion over a decade will not even overcome the amount of deficit spending this president has racked up in less than four years at the helm: $5.2 trillion, pushing the national debt to over $16 trillion.

The model for this $4 trillion deficit reduction effort comes from the Simpson Bowles Commission. Its report was released in December 2010 and has been gathering dust ever since, other than becoming the basis for baseless campaign fodder.

Here's the first gross distortion: "On top of the trillion in spending we've already cut, I'd ask the wealthy to pay a little more." Has $1 trillion already been cut? No. That's a lie. The so-called sequestrations ordered as a result of the failed "Super Committee" negotiations surrounding the debt ceiling deal last summer call for $1 trillion in reduced government spending over ten years.

Is that likely to happen? Apparently the President doesn't think so, because the White House issued a memorandum to government contractors advising them not to issue WARN (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification) Act notices to their employees. If the sequestrations do go into effect and there are mass layoffs, these contractors have been told that the taxpayers will pick up the tab for violating the WARN Act provisions; that is, the contractors will be able to pass the fines through as a reimbursable expense.

So the White House is betting on Congress doing something to stop or mitigate the sequestrations, meaning that they're hoping that the $1 trillion doesn't come to pass even though the President said, and I'll quote again: "On top of the $1 trillion in spending we've already cut."

Blown gasket number one.

Here's the second gross distortion: "And as we end the war in Afghanistan, let's apply half the savings to pay down our debt and use the rest for some nation building right here at home."

Ten more blown gaskets on that one.

How disingenuous can he be? The President and his ad writers are counting on us to be complete nincompoops to swallow this B.S.

How many times has President Obama and his surrogates pointed out that a big contributor to the national debt has been two unfunded wars? A hundred times? A thousand times? By the way, I agree with the statement.

Think this through with me here. Why would unfunded wars run up the national debt?

Perhaps because we're borrowing the money to pay for them?

Bingo!!

Then how the (insert profane word here) are we going to use half the "savings" from not borrowing more money to pay down the national debt?

Blam! Another blown gasket.

Apparently, he must believe that we can borrow half as much and use it to pay down, well, what we just borrowed. Let me save you some time, Mr. President. Do nothing. There. Same result.

Aaaaaaaggghhh!!!

Now let's take the rest of the money we're not borrowing for the war in Afghanistan and borrow it to spend on rebuilding America. Over ten years, that would be about $500 million, essentially negating half of the $1 trillion in sequestrations.

Does any of this make sense to you?

I suppose it makes sense to people who accept anything as the truth as long as it's said over a New Age piano track.

Come on, America. Wake up!

6 comments:

  1. Randy, I saw the same ad and I feel your pain. LOL No what is sad is there are schmucks out there that buy this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This must be one of those Ads where they are trying to invigorate the base voters. No need for any truth here.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio&feature=related

    ReplyDelete
  3. Carl Johansen would state that given how the presidential race sets the tones for other races, is it no wonder that even the local political boys club also uses the same unfounded and untruthful statments to say how they will be the better choice.

    We the American voters have arrived at a low period in our time , by not challenging those whom have decided, we are just plain stupid in believing what they spew out as facts.

    Many times both parties in a race take to this low road of facts and unfortunedly, uninformed voters will fall for the retroric falsehoods being stated.

    As an independant voter, I look for the one that tells the story with truth and facts and it makes no difference if you are a republican or democrat.

    I observe how each go about placing signs all over an area and how they disrepect public and private held property with there signage placement. Those whom have decided to flood one area with a multitude of signs for example shows a distain to observing sign laws in place against such displays.

    Why does one candidate need to have more then one sign at any location is beyond my comprehension and borders a person that simply disregards playing by the rules as a person. I will not support such a person as they disrespect laws in general and that for me is not what we need in todays world of politics.

    Those who also claim that they can perform a task that is not under there jurisdictional power to do so, but make a false claim that they can, also show the imperfection of telling a lie , just for the sake of lying to make them selves better then they are.

    It all comes down to if you have integrity then you assure others that following the laws in place and not supporting those that do not, shows a strength of an honest and law abiding candidate that we all should support and feel comfortable in voting for.

    The challenge has been offered to each of us in many of the up and comming positions that represent the people, we as voters need to determine who in the end is really worth our vote, no matter if that person is a Democrat or Republican.

    Who we vote in, for what ever position in todays political climate, should be doing our homework on each and every one before we put any mark on the ballot for our choice.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I would take exception to your las paragraph. I believe in the end you vote for the perso who represents the party that most aligns with your beliefs.

    I believe that life begins in the womb and that altough my womb is my business, there are also laws of ethics that would tell me that partial birth abortion is nothing less than murder.

    I believe that if a Catholic organization that employees people wishes not to have an insurance policy for their employees, it should not contain, should they choose, anything that violates their religion.

    I believe that criminals should be punished for crimes and not treated with much more dignaty as requiered.

    I believe that government should not have unions. It is unethical and the unions do not work--for the people that is.

    I believe we should defend Israel and show the world that they are first among equals.

    I believe that the common man is more important than forced equality.

    I vote for the person who will try to get me what I want through their philosophy and their party.

    Mr. Johansen, I feel that they all lie and that they all know that the American Public, as a whole, is dumb.

    People in this state vote for a person because the person is a Democrat not because the person tell the truth. Democrats give something to everyone except business people and church goers.

    I am voting for Romney, Brown, Keyes, Hunt and Gleason.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Carl Johansen would say to Braless 32A that we really do agree with most of what you have written.
    In retrospect each of us that follow and attempt to understand all the candidates motivation for serving in a public office, do so with a great deal of trust that we fully understand the reasons for that choice. My vote as I have stated has been and remain what I determine who in fact does forfill the commitments they make and do it with ethical pride.

    Those that attempt to lie,while in office or out for any reason I will not vote for and the party affilation does not concern me in the least.

    If the peron running for any office does not have personal ethics and cannot follow the rules in place that we are governed by , then I demiss that person from my sight. Or at the very least vote for the less of two evils.

    I have made my choice on Mr. Hunt as the best ethical person in the race for Represenative.

    My other decisions are waiting for a final check on what I can determine will most likly be the best of two worlds. I am considering the same choices you have made except for your choice for Senator. My final choice will be vented out in the next several weeks, after obtaining further information, to verify some of my own concerns that have just recently been brought to light by the news media. Is it all about transparancy?? Is it all about what we believe in?? Is it all about the truth?? Is it all about being honest with the facts?? Is all about personal charm?? Is it all about all of the above ?? Is it all about non of the above ??

    Time tells all and the longer we can evaluate, the better the answer becomes. At least I would like to think so.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Randy, Can you get a question to Obama.

    I would like to know why we would default on our debt if the debt ceiling is not increased. We take in ten times the amount needed to pay the debt each month. Why can't we pay our debt first, then prioritize what should be paid after that, and at the end if the ain't no money, then maybe cut out useless programs and expensive travel.

    ReplyDelete

I monitor all comments. As long as there are no personally defamatory statements and/or foul language, I'll post your comment. For this reason, your comment will not appear instantaneously. To comment without registering, choose Name/URL and type a screen name (or your real name if you like) into the Name field. Leave the URL field blank.