I've really tried to be optimistic about President Obama and wait until he does something before I really jump on his case. I've hoped that he would govern as a moderate as the RINO's have said he would. But unfortunately that hasn't been the case so far. He's planning on holding off on the stimulus package, so to speak. As of right now, the plan is to slowly release bits and pieces of the stimulus over the next 3-8 years. The thing about STIMULUS is that it's supposed to STIMULATE. Unemployment continues to rise and the President is not using the money designated to stimulate the economy to stimulate the economy. Over the next few years he plans to slowly release this money into special projects which do not provide long term benefits to the economy. He wants to build infrastructure, which is a one and done type of stimulus. Once the infrastructure projects are completed you will have those people involved in the projects out of a job. If you want LONG-TERM job creation, you need to cut taxes. The problem with cutting taxes is that the liberals will lose power so President Obama is unlikely to do that. But if I were a restaurant owner thinking of expanding my business, (and creating 10-20 new jobs) I wouldn't do it if I knew my taxes were about to go up. The only industry that will not be affected by this increase in taxes and spending will be the government industry which is the only industry that SHOULD be downsizing.
Next, in all of his wisdom, with his military and diplomatic experience the President has decided to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Many of the detainees who have been released from this facility have gone on to return to the front lines against our military forces and have been involved in further terrorist activity. I agree that the detainees should receive a form of due process. They should be given a fair trial by military tribunal as would be given to any enemy combatant or prisoner of war. As terrorists who are not fighting for any nation, these terrorists are not guaranteed protection under the Geneva Convention. With that said, there should still be a trial which would release those held falsely and convict those who are truly terrorists. However, our soldiers and marines should not have to read terrorists Miranda rights, and terrorists do not deserve a trial in US civilian courts at US taxpayer expense. The other question is: What do we do with the guys that we can't convict and can't send back? My proposal is to let them stay at the Obama's home in Chicago. But seriously, the president at the press conference was referring questions regarding this Executive Order to his lawyer. Mr. President, you are the Chief Executive. You shouldn't be asking your lawyer questions about an order you just signed, especially in front of the media. But none of those empty suits called you on the fact that you didn't know what was in your own order did they?
The last thing that burned me up (well there's more, but this is the last one I'll talk about) is that the President signed another order to loosen restrictions on abortion. It allowed US tax dollars to be spent on abortions overseas. I don't really like the idea of my tax dollars going to murder babies. I don't want to say more because blood is about to shoot out of my eyes.
The one bright spot (if you can call it that) is that the President signed an order to freeze high-level executive pay in the government. I like the idea that we are freezing unnecessary spending, but this is a drop in the bucket. So he saves the taxpayers a couple of million (yea) and raises the deficit by about $500 billion and doesn't even get the stimulus where it's supposed to go. So he gets props for the one good measure, albeit a minor one, and a whole lot of thumbs down for just about everything else he did over the past week.
9 comments:
"The long and WHINEding road"
He's strtn off slow; wait till he purposes tax increases to Congress or vise-versa. This is linin up to be the slow drip New Deal.
And climate change, we're gonna get our fill a this load a crap for the next four years.
Oh, and diplomacy, we're now the most diplomatic solution seekn nation on earth.
And finally, CHEESE! I hear he's gonna go after the cheese industry next. That b*st*rd!
He's already started on the climate change garbage. Leaving emissions standards to the states means that car manufacturers will have to manufacture vehicles to whatever standards the idiots in KAliFORnea want. So auto manufacturers will be at the whim of the governator. I'd say this to GM, Ford and Chrysler. Refuse to sell vehicles in the states that increase their standards.
But they won't do that. Retooling the plants will mean more highway deaths because of increased plastic on cars and less steel. It will also mean more job losses for Michigan. They're already at 9.6%. Are you ready for 15% unemployment Michigan?
If I were the big three, I would also bring a lawsuit against the first state to impose tougher restrictions arguing that it violates interstate commerce. But I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so I don't know if it would fly, but I think it would. The Supreme Court right now is the only friend left to business in America, and honestly, it would come down to Kennedy. We pretty much know how the other 8 justices will go.
The good news is he hasn't done anything unexpected.
Nestor, so what is it that you right-wingers are against state's rights so all of a sudden???? ;-)
Stan, I'm FOR states rights. But there's this little thing called interstate commerce. Federal authority trumps states rights as it pertains to interstate commerce. If KAliFORnea makes it harder for auto manufacturers to produce their vehicles, it negatively impacts interstate commerce. It means GM has to make all of their vehicles to a higher standard to suit the KAliFORnea libs, but that means that everywhere in America you'll pay more for vehicles. Even here in God's country. (aka Texas) But apparently the President doesn't care about that, or his lawyer hasn't told him what to think about that yet.
Nestor -
> Stan, I'm FOR states rights ...
Unless it's California's rights were talking about.
Nestor my friend, you need a "Californi(edu)cation".
Stan,
So you think KAliFORnea is allowed to violate interstate commerce???
Red-herring, and it's also a straw man.
Nestor, try attacking what I've said rather than attacking what you wish I'd say. You're missing your target as-per-usual.
Post a Comment