President Obama has started a daily campaign to tout the benefits of Obamacare. Today he said "The website is up and working and people are signing up for Obamacare in large numbers". Representative Joe Wilson from Georgia who became famous for yelling out; "You lie!" during Obama's State of the Union speech in 2009 was a prophesier.
All politicians lie but Barack Obama has taken it to a different level. He knew nothing about Bengazi, the IRS scandals, the NSA spying scandals, Fast and Furious, etc., etc., and like all presidents his loyal followers were willing to also lie to protect him. Other than the four patriotic Americans who were killed in Bengazi, the American people were not hurt directly as a result of any of these scandals - they just were not told the truth.
But the lies about Obamacare - "You can keep your insurance", "You can keep your doctor", "The average family will save $2500 per year", were serious lies that will be hurting a lot of Americans. Five million have already lost their insurance and it is estimated that ten times that could lose their insurance next year. And the latest lie is that the system is "up and working". It is estimated that 30 % of people who have signed up actually don't have insurance and will be surprised when they try to go to the doctor for the first time. During hearings two weeks ago all four security experts were asked under oath if they thought the Obamacare website was secure from hackers and identity theft; they all testified "No".
And the final lie was announced tonight: The system for payment and calculating subsidies from the website to the insurance companies has not even been designed yet! So the governments solution; they will let the insurance companies "estimate" the subsidies owed them and the government will send them a check and reconcile the payments at a later date...think about that; millions of our dollars being sent to the insurance companies based on the "honor system".
While at the same time Obama will be out every day until Christmas telling us how great Obamacare is, and that it is "up and working well". Like Joe Wilson, I say "You lie!"
I read today that Amazon.com handled 26.5 million purchases on November 26th - a sales rate of 306 items per second. This is a classic example of what private sector business people can do. Obamacare is a classic example of government incompetence at a level the American public has never seen.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Do principles matter?
I thought my last Blog would generate many comments, and it did. Especially from two of my favorite people who are also vociferous in stating their opinions (not always agreeing with me...).
As of this writing it looks like things are back to square one with Obama and his Democratic Senate refusing to accept anything but "status quo"; raising the debt ceiling and moving forward with more spending increases. These deadlines normally cause politicians to cave and come to some kind of agreement and that may happen this week.
But I wonder if our elected officials are really negotiating and voting for their principles or to protect their job? I suspect the latter. All politicians are sworn to obey the Constitution but many "interpret" it differently. Since the country is split 50/50 then it's reasonable to expect Congressmen and Senators to follow the desires of their constituents...after all that is what a Representative Republic is all about. So maybe gridlock is a perfectly normal result.
The Tea Party takes the brunt of the attack, but I believe only because of the main stream liberal media. I have been to several Tea Party rallies and all these folks want is for the government to stop the madness in spending and get the out-of-control government under control. I have never seen a radical or violent demonstration of any kind at a Tea Party rally, yet that's all you read about in the MSM, while very little is ever read about the "occupy" radicals who practice violence at almost every occasion. If in one of the Tea Party demonstrations across the country someone flies a Confederate flag that's all you will see on the main stream news for days.
So in the end this 50/50 split is good in a way...maybe not if it puts the government into default (which could not happen without Obama directing it), but those Tea Party candidates were sent to Washington in 2010 to stop the spending madness and some I believe are willing to "go down with the ship" and sacrifice their careers for their principles. Smart move; maybe not; but if they lose their careers they will be able to say "I did what my voters sent me to do and what the Constitution required me to do".
In the end, the solution to all this madness is simple, the country needs a leader.
As of this writing it looks like things are back to square one with Obama and his Democratic Senate refusing to accept anything but "status quo"; raising the debt ceiling and moving forward with more spending increases. These deadlines normally cause politicians to cave and come to some kind of agreement and that may happen this week.
But I wonder if our elected officials are really negotiating and voting for their principles or to protect their job? I suspect the latter. All politicians are sworn to obey the Constitution but many "interpret" it differently. Since the country is split 50/50 then it's reasonable to expect Congressmen and Senators to follow the desires of their constituents...after all that is what a Representative Republic is all about. So maybe gridlock is a perfectly normal result.
The Tea Party takes the brunt of the attack, but I believe only because of the main stream liberal media. I have been to several Tea Party rallies and all these folks want is for the government to stop the madness in spending and get the out-of-control government under control. I have never seen a radical or violent demonstration of any kind at a Tea Party rally, yet that's all you read about in the MSM, while very little is ever read about the "occupy" radicals who practice violence at almost every occasion. If in one of the Tea Party demonstrations across the country someone flies a Confederate flag that's all you will see on the main stream news for days.
So in the end this 50/50 split is good in a way...maybe not if it puts the government into default (which could not happen without Obama directing it), but those Tea Party candidates were sent to Washington in 2010 to stop the spending madness and some I believe are willing to "go down with the ship" and sacrifice their careers for their principles. Smart move; maybe not; but if they lose their careers they will be able to say "I did what my voters sent me to do and what the Constitution required me to do".
In the end, the solution to all this madness is simple, the country needs a leader.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Fiscal cliff...again
We have been here before, government shut down, and the debt ceiling looming in a week or two. The democrats say; "Give us a clean 'continuing resolution' and extend the debt ceiling and we will then negotiate". It's like an alcoholic saying; "If you let me have one more drink, then I will finally quit".
I for one am sick of seeing this country spend their way into oblivion - a trillion dollars more every year than we take in, with no end in sight, and every day we get closer to what I believe will be a big crash. I don't know if it will be the stock market crashes, the financial system crashes or hyper-inflation (what if that $50,000 you saved for your child's education would only get them through the first semester?).
So I am going to take a radical position in this blog, and I am sure I will get a lot of comments:
First - We should keep the government shut down until the individual mandate in Obamacare is extended a year (like the employer mandate) so they can work the bugs out. And Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, and all other companies and unions with exemptions must participate in Obamacare like every other ordinary American.
Second - We should let the debt ceiling come and go and refuse to increase it. Some say the government will then "default" - bullshit (pardon me). The monthly interest on the national debt is approximately $20 billion and must be paid, but it is only about 10% of the monthly revenue this country takes in. That leaves 90% of our monthly income to pay the remaining bills. Some experts say this will mean a 10-15% cut in government expenditures and may cause another recession. Another recession? When have we ever left the last one?
A good manager could make this work, every American knows there must be 10-20% fat in our government. Yes this would cause short term pain, primarily for government workers and subcontractors, but at some point the alcoholic has to have a drastic "intervention" or he will die a slow death.
I ran three companies during my career and there were times when a 10-15% cut was necessary, and there was pain, but in every case the company came out healthier and in some cases growth exploded.
The problem with this administration is that even if this scenario were to happen they would play politics instead of thinking of the country . Instead of prioritizing spending they would make it as painful to the American public as possible. As they have done recently by funding PBS (and "big bird") and Planned Parenthood while locking out WWII vets from their memorial, closing the Statue of Liberty and Grand Canyon, and refusing to pay death benefits to military families who lost loved ones fighting in Afghanistan - a disgrace, and one that Obama will never live down. In the military's eyes he and Chuck Hagel are now down there with John Kerry and Jane Fonda.
But I believe that if we face the pain now and work our way through it, the lemmings in this country that blindly follow Obama will finally see what he and his administration have done to our Constitution and way of life.
Let's dig in our heels and not pass this mess on to our children and grandchildren.
I for one am sick of seeing this country spend their way into oblivion - a trillion dollars more every year than we take in, with no end in sight, and every day we get closer to what I believe will be a big crash. I don't know if it will be the stock market crashes, the financial system crashes or hyper-inflation (what if that $50,000 you saved for your child's education would only get them through the first semester?).
So I am going to take a radical position in this blog, and I am sure I will get a lot of comments:
First - We should keep the government shut down until the individual mandate in Obamacare is extended a year (like the employer mandate) so they can work the bugs out. And Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, and all other companies and unions with exemptions must participate in Obamacare like every other ordinary American.
Second - We should let the debt ceiling come and go and refuse to increase it. Some say the government will then "default" - bullshit (pardon me). The monthly interest on the national debt is approximately $20 billion and must be paid, but it is only about 10% of the monthly revenue this country takes in. That leaves 90% of our monthly income to pay the remaining bills. Some experts say this will mean a 10-15% cut in government expenditures and may cause another recession. Another recession? When have we ever left the last one?
A good manager could make this work, every American knows there must be 10-20% fat in our government. Yes this would cause short term pain, primarily for government workers and subcontractors, but at some point the alcoholic has to have a drastic "intervention" or he will die a slow death.
I ran three companies during my career and there were times when a 10-15% cut was necessary, and there was pain, but in every case the company came out healthier and in some cases growth exploded.
The problem with this administration is that even if this scenario were to happen they would play politics instead of thinking of the country . Instead of prioritizing spending they would make it as painful to the American public as possible. As they have done recently by funding PBS (and "big bird") and Planned Parenthood while locking out WWII vets from their memorial, closing the Statue of Liberty and Grand Canyon, and refusing to pay death benefits to military families who lost loved ones fighting in Afghanistan - a disgrace, and one that Obama will never live down. In the military's eyes he and Chuck Hagel are now down there with John Kerry and Jane Fonda.
But I believe that if we face the pain now and work our way through it, the lemmings in this country that blindly follow Obama will finally see what he and his administration have done to our Constitution and way of life.
Let's dig in our heels and not pass this mess on to our children and grandchildren.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
"I know nothing"
This administration must be watching old reruns of Hogan's Heroes, especially Sargent Schultz and his favorite saying: "I know nothing".
With a trifecta of scandals consuming Washington the Obama regime is in full "I know nothing" mode. The temporary head of the IRS didn't know about the targeting of Conservative groups, the past head of the IRS didn't know, and the woman in charge of the Exempt Division of the IRS involved took the 5th amendment during hearings "on grounds that it may incriminate her"...hmm. During a press conference Obama was asked if anyone at the White House knew about the IRS scandal. His response: "I can tell you that I didn't know until I heard about the IG report". His law school training kicked in with a "non -answer" to the question. In fact it later came out that the White House Counsel and Obama's Chief of Staff knew about it and "claim" they didn't tell him.
No one at the top claims to know exactly what happened in Benghazi - Hillary didn't know and Obama didn't know; in fact most of the senior people involved say they didn't know. One of Obama's senior advisers was asked repeatedly on the Sunday talk shows;: "What was the President doing the night while our embassy was being attacked?" His response: "I don't know, and it is irrelevant"; sounds like Hillary's "What does it Matter".
Our Attorney general during a hearing regarding the wire tapping of email and phone calls of 20 AP lines involving 100 reporters responded over and over "I can't answer that, it was my deputy, so I don't know". Then it was revealed that he approved monitoring reporter James Rosen (and even his parents), on the basis of possibly violating the Espionage Act. This was after testifying under oath that he was never involved in the process of secretly monitoring the press.
Who is running this country?
These scandals are not going away. If the President were Republican the left wing media would be in full attack mode. But the DOJ attacking journalists seems to have triggered some real animosity toward this administration and it seems like the left media now wants some answers, and maybe even the "truth". The IRS scandal gets larger by the day starting with "two rogue agents in Cincinnati" and now possibly hundreds of agents involved including managers at high levels - the question, how high will this go?
These investigations will continue for weeks, probably months, so who knows what truths will come out. I am reminded of two proverbs: "Where there is smoke there is fire", or even more prophetic: "A fish rots from the head down".
With a trifecta of scandals consuming Washington the Obama regime is in full "I know nothing" mode. The temporary head of the IRS didn't know about the targeting of Conservative groups, the past head of the IRS didn't know, and the woman in charge of the Exempt Division of the IRS involved took the 5th amendment during hearings "on grounds that it may incriminate her"...hmm. During a press conference Obama was asked if anyone at the White House knew about the IRS scandal. His response: "I can tell you that I didn't know until I heard about the IG report". His law school training kicked in with a "non -answer" to the question. In fact it later came out that the White House Counsel and Obama's Chief of Staff knew about it and "claim" they didn't tell him.
No one at the top claims to know exactly what happened in Benghazi - Hillary didn't know and Obama didn't know; in fact most of the senior people involved say they didn't know. One of Obama's senior advisers was asked repeatedly on the Sunday talk shows;: "What was the President doing the night while our embassy was being attacked?" His response: "I don't know, and it is irrelevant"; sounds like Hillary's "What does it Matter".
Our Attorney general during a hearing regarding the wire tapping of email and phone calls of 20 AP lines involving 100 reporters responded over and over "I can't answer that, it was my deputy, so I don't know". Then it was revealed that he approved monitoring reporter James Rosen (and even his parents), on the basis of possibly violating the Espionage Act. This was after testifying under oath that he was never involved in the process of secretly monitoring the press.
Who is running this country?
These scandals are not going away. If the President were Republican the left wing media would be in full attack mode. But the DOJ attacking journalists seems to have triggered some real animosity toward this administration and it seems like the left media now wants some answers, and maybe even the "truth". The IRS scandal gets larger by the day starting with "two rogue agents in Cincinnati" and now possibly hundreds of agents involved including managers at high levels - the question, how high will this go?
These investigations will continue for weeks, probably months, so who knows what truths will come out. I am reminded of two proverbs: "Where there is smoke there is fire", or even more prophetic: "A fish rots from the head down".
Thursday, May 16, 2013
"Chuckie D's in trouble"
The IRS scandal is common news by now even to the "low information voter " as Rush Limbaugh would say. But there appears to be much more to the scandal than targeting "Tea Party", "Patriots", or "People that want America to be better", and who knows how many other individuals or organizations. Some reports say "Pro Life", "Pro Israel", and "Evangelical" organizations also were targeted for harassment.
Even a reporter in the mid-west who last year before the election asked Obama some very difficult and not flattering questions says that he was audited for the first time in his life 6 months after that interview. Who knows? Some conspiracy theorists even say that if you write a Blog criticizing the Obama administration, you may be a target...uh, oh.
Barack I was just kidding! I do remember saying you had a "golden voice", so that should be worth something. And referring to you as the puppet "Howdy Doody" in one of my Blogs was just a joke...common man. OK, I did say you were incompetent and had no leadership capability. But don't take that as a "negative", look at your competition - other politicians.
Barry I hope you won't have the IRS audit me...I was just kidding! But if you do I guess I'll just have to tell the truth. Is that weird or what? Bet you never thought of doing that.
OK, no I wasn't kidding about you. Those that read this Blog know I have a very low opinion of the current slate of politicians, but especially you and your administration. I have been voting for 50 years and have never seen this level of incompetence in Washington - on both sides. And it's only fitting Barry, that you are the "cream at the top".
Even a reporter in the mid-west who last year before the election asked Obama some very difficult and not flattering questions says that he was audited for the first time in his life 6 months after that interview. Who knows? Some conspiracy theorists even say that if you write a Blog criticizing the Obama administration, you may be a target...uh, oh.
Barack I was just kidding! I do remember saying you had a "golden voice", so that should be worth something. And referring to you as the puppet "Howdy Doody" in one of my Blogs was just a joke...common man. OK, I did say you were incompetent and had no leadership capability. But don't take that as a "negative", look at your competition - other politicians.
Barry I hope you won't have the IRS audit me...I was just kidding! But if you do I guess I'll just have to tell the truth. Is that weird or what? Bet you never thought of doing that.
OK, no I wasn't kidding about you. Those that read this Blog know I have a very low opinion of the current slate of politicians, but especially you and your administration. I have been voting for 50 years and have never seen this level of incompetence in Washington - on both sides. And it's only fitting Barry, that you are the "cream at the top".
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
"Is Conservatism Dead?"
After Obama's election, many are now saying "yes" - they say the "takers" in the country are outnumbering the "producers", and the takers will always vote democratic because it is the party of free stuff. They say the entitlement society is here to stay and as long as the voters are getting free stuff they will vote the democrat party line.
The results of the election seem to indicate that possibility – more than 96% of blacks voting for Obama and in the heavily populated areas of Philadelphia and Cleveland over 99%. According to election results more than 90% of the African American community turned out to vote and 59 voting districts recorded -0- votes for Romney. The experts say it is highly unlikely that that percentage of voters turned out, and hard to believe not even one vote for Romney, but since it did not make a difference in the election, no one really followed up and investigated.
I am not denigrating blacks, but being 13% of the population and 48% of the welfare rolls they have a vested interest in the entitlement society. Why such a large proportion of blacks are on welfare is the subject of another Blog, but they certainly are not a voting block that will promote conservatism...at least not yet. A lot of very impressive young black conservatives may change that. After all, at some point young ambitious blacks will start asking themselves: "What has the Democratic party done for me?"
Obama received 71% of the Hispanic vote, even though the Hispanic culture tends to be somewhat conservative - strong family and religious values and generally hard working people. But large numbers of Hispanics are receiving federal assistance of some kind so maybe the fact they are getting free stuff in large numbers, the democrats have that voting block locked up. I don't think so. The GOP did a poor job this last election of reaching out to Hispanics, and I don't mean "accepting" illegal immigration; studies have shown that large portions of the US Hispanic population are also against illegal immigration. They want jobs and opportunity to achieve.
Single women and young people also went for Obama. Some say single women look at the government as their "safety net". Young people educated in our public schools and colleges are indoctrinated in liberalism and as a result, until they get into the real world most of them are democrats.
All of this should indicate that the democrats are in the driver’s seat for a long time, maybe for good.
I don't believe it. I believe there is something in the human spirit that makes most people want to work and produce something. But in this economy that is difficult for millions of people, and call me an optimist but I think many of those "takers" want a good job and the government out of their lives.
After all what is Conservatism?
* The freedom to pursue your goals with unlimited opportunity and without a massive regulatory government.
* Reasonable taxation - enough to run the government for the purposes our founders intended, but not to burden the populous with meaningless wasteful programs, and a government that lives within its means.
* Care for the old, the poor, and the disabled but not redistribution of income from successful people to able bodied workers.
I believe the problem this election was the messenger. Romney was not able to articulate what conservatives really stand for... Reagan did it in 1980. Conservatives need to dump the old guard GOP and find a leader that can preach that message. Luckily we have bench of talented young conservatives and hopefully they will start taking power from the GOP dinosaurs that have lost their way.
Friday, February 8, 2013
"Sequester away!"
On March 1st automatic spending cuts of $85 billion are set to go into effect, one half in defense cuts and one half across-the-board cuts affecting everything except Social Security, Medicaid and on-going wars. By law these cuts will continue, totaling $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years.
Democrats are screaming "the sky is falling" even though the "sequester" was the Obama administrations idea - they never thought it would happen. Democratic Congressmen have already started the classic liberal rhetoric, - "We will be taking food out of the mouths of children, etc, etc...."
I believe the sequester is a good start and much more needs to be done. To put things into perspective, this so-called "radical" cut in government spending is less that 10% of the projected deficit for the next fiscal year. The fiscal mismanagement of this government has been so incompetent that there is no solution to this problem without pain, so let's get started.
This week a friend of ours put the problem in perspective and her short, concise letter was printed in the Wall Street Journal. I quote:
"Working families are required to take a 2% reduction in take home pay this year. It's only reasonable that every government department and agency (which working families pay for), should also be required to take a 2% reduction in their budgets"
Leah Dukes
Paso Robles, California
I agree completely.
During my career I managed three different companies, through good times and bad. During the bad times it was not unusual to assemble our department managers and tell them they had to cut their budget 5% or 10% - any way they wanted to do it, just do it. If a manager complained or said he couldn't do it, he was replaced. For those that have had business dealing with the government I have a question - do you think government agencies could cut their budget 5%? The Postal Service is a classic example - they want to stop Saturday delivery, saving $2 billion a year. That sounds impressive until you realize they lose $16 billion a year. Their wages and benefits consume 80% of their operating dollars compared to 32% for FedEx and 53% for unionized UPS. You can do the math.
Unfortunately government agencies cannot be required to cut expenses without Congressional approval and government employees cannot be fired for incompetence (Bengazi is a classic example). So we muddle along and wait for our incompetent politicians to get some guts and convince the electorate that short term financial pain now will result in a much brighter future for our children and grandchildren. Don't count on it.
Democrats are screaming "the sky is falling" even though the "sequester" was the Obama administrations idea - they never thought it would happen. Democratic Congressmen have already started the classic liberal rhetoric, - "We will be taking food out of the mouths of children, etc, etc...."
I believe the sequester is a good start and much more needs to be done. To put things into perspective, this so-called "radical" cut in government spending is less that 10% of the projected deficit for the next fiscal year. The fiscal mismanagement of this government has been so incompetent that there is no solution to this problem without pain, so let's get started.
This week a friend of ours put the problem in perspective and her short, concise letter was printed in the Wall Street Journal. I quote:
"Working families are required to take a 2% reduction in take home pay this year. It's only reasonable that every government department and agency (which working families pay for), should also be required to take a 2% reduction in their budgets"
Leah Dukes
Paso Robles, California
I agree completely.
During my career I managed three different companies, through good times and bad. During the bad times it was not unusual to assemble our department managers and tell them they had to cut their budget 5% or 10% - any way they wanted to do it, just do it. If a manager complained or said he couldn't do it, he was replaced. For those that have had business dealing with the government I have a question - do you think government agencies could cut their budget 5%? The Postal Service is a classic example - they want to stop Saturday delivery, saving $2 billion a year. That sounds impressive until you realize they lose $16 billion a year. Their wages and benefits consume 80% of their operating dollars compared to 32% for FedEx and 53% for unionized UPS. You can do the math.
Unfortunately government agencies cannot be required to cut expenses without Congressional approval and government employees cannot be fired for incompetence (Bengazi is a classic example). So we muddle along and wait for our incompetent politicians to get some guts and convince the electorate that short term financial pain now will result in a much brighter future for our children and grandchildren. Don't count on it.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
"Class War Victory"
President Obama has been waging a "class war" since he was elected: "The 'rich' need to pay their fair share". Well, he won a battle in the war last night. For most Americans (including me), raising taxes on the so-called rich does not affect us and Obama has brilliantly cast rich people as the enemy. So why not stick it to them, it doesn't affect us...or does it?
You will note that the democrats never use the word "successful" when talking about people with money...rich has a much more negative connotation. "They need to pay their fair share" is an ironic statement since the top 10% of earners pay more than 60% of taxes. But they can afford it right? For now, Obama has sold a majority on that idea.
Why should it matter to me (or most of you) that people making over $400,000 are now paying higher taxes. It doesn't affect me - but once it would have. I started my own business in the late 70's and struggled for years, going almost two years without a salary, but thanks to many 6-7 day work weeks during the 80's I became one of the "2%" Obama is now attacking. But I was lucky, Ronald Reagan was president and the maximum federal tax rate was 28%. We sold our successful business in the 90's and then I just became "one of the folks" in retirement.
But even though this new tax rate should have no effect on me...it does, and makes me angry. How many young entrepreneurs are out there wondering why should I bust my butt and if successful, end up paying a major portion of my earnings to the government? For those of you who could care less about Obama sticking it to the so-called rich - have you ever thought that maybe a successful person could offer you a good job opportunity in the future, and that maybe that opportunity may now be gone?
Obama in his speech last night "spiked the ball" and said that this wasn't the end: "More revenue from the rich is needed". This whole exercise was pathetic, between Obama and his complicit media the issue was framed as "taxes on the rich" when the real problem is the national debt and Obama and the Congress did NOTHING about that.
Most job creators are the so-called rich that Obama refers to - he is afraid to use the word "successful" because for the millions that pay no attention, it would not fit into his class warfare narrative. He is the most pitiful leader this country has ever had and I believe he is determined to make the USA a socialist/debtor country.
You will note that the democrats never use the word "successful" when talking about people with money...rich has a much more negative connotation. "They need to pay their fair share" is an ironic statement since the top 10% of earners pay more than 60% of taxes. But they can afford it right? For now, Obama has sold a majority on that idea.
Why should it matter to me (or most of you) that people making over $400,000 are now paying higher taxes. It doesn't affect me - but once it would have. I started my own business in the late 70's and struggled for years, going almost two years without a salary, but thanks to many 6-7 day work weeks during the 80's I became one of the "2%" Obama is now attacking. But I was lucky, Ronald Reagan was president and the maximum federal tax rate was 28%. We sold our successful business in the 90's and then I just became "one of the folks" in retirement.
But even though this new tax rate should have no effect on me...it does, and makes me angry. How many young entrepreneurs are out there wondering why should I bust my butt and if successful, end up paying a major portion of my earnings to the government? For those of you who could care less about Obama sticking it to the so-called rich - have you ever thought that maybe a successful person could offer you a good job opportunity in the future, and that maybe that opportunity may now be gone?
Obama in his speech last night "spiked the ball" and said that this wasn't the end: "More revenue from the rich is needed". This whole exercise was pathetic, between Obama and his complicit media the issue was framed as "taxes on the rich" when the real problem is the national debt and Obama and the Congress did NOTHING about that.
Most job creators are the so-called rich that Obama refers to - he is afraid to use the word "successful" because for the millions that pay no attention, it would not fit into his class warfare narrative. He is the most pitiful leader this country has ever had and I believe he is determined to make the USA a socialist/debtor country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
