Chalk up another hit to the country's financial health courtesy of the mind-numbing liberals. The Social Security surplus, expected by most estimates to only last until 2017, has suddenly disappeared (STORY HERE) thanks to Wall Street's plunge.
While blame for the current state of the stock market can certainly be debated (although what continues to happen to it in the coming months and years unequivocally rests at Barack Obama's, Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's feet), the fact that so many of us have been forced to continue to rely on Social Security for a big part of our future retirement income is 100 percent the Democrats' doing.
Just as George Bush sounded warning sirens about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during his first term, only to be rebuffed by Democrats who lied to protect their own, he also made a major bid to reform our dependence on a Social Security system that was headed for the cliff's edge.
He and others saw the coming flood of Boomers retiring and the drain that would put on the system ... hence the estimates that Social Security would go belly-up before many of us reach retirement.
But "noooooooooo" cried the Democrats. They used scare tactics on retirees, telling them that Bush was stealing their money, when his measures specifically excluded them and applied ONLY to younger people. They blocked any kind of legislation from ever having a chance.
Well, now Social Security will only survive month to month. And when that flood of Boomers hits the magic age?
Hope they have a lot of money stuffed in their mattresses.
And a little further down the line are many of us, who nevertheless will have to continue paying into a system that we have NO hope of ever drawing a dime from.
Our money. Flushed away. Our future. Tenuous at best.
Seems to be a pattern with liberals nowadays, doesn't it?
(Imported from April 1, 2009)
Showing posts with label George Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Bush. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
This and that
Ford Motor Company wants another bailout. Only they don't want the government to give them money. They want YOU to give the government money.
Ford CEO Alan Mulally is asking Washington to raise the federal gas tax to make the price per gallon $4 AT THE LOWEST, according to the Wall Street Journal. Ford, you see, has a boatload of these crappy little green cars that it can't unload at any price, largely because the price of gas has fallen about 150 percent since last summer and people are back to buying SUVs and mid-size cars.
This tax increase idea already has been floated on Capitol Hill by a number of libs looking for all the ways they can to pay for their pork. So don't be surprised if by June, we're not well on our way to being right back where we were last summer.
So air up those tires and get a tuneup, eh.
(If you don't recognize the tire/tuneup line, you're probably not alone. That's what Obama said we should all do last summer when gas eclipsed $4. The media, naturally, didn't hold him in anything resembling contempt for saying, essentially, tough sh*t America.)
*****
From Politico:
The eye-popping national debt surpassed $11 trillion Monday, the largest in U.S. history.
The new Treasury Department figures on the national debt were released as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office is expected to project that the annual budget deficit will be higher than previously estimated by the White House's Office of Management and Budget. The debt, which refers to the cumulative amount of money the government owes, hit $10.9 trillion on Friday.
The whopping number has major ramifications for President Barack Obama, who is trying to push through a raft of big-ticket bills on health care, energy, education and climate change — while also attempting to stabilize the swooning economy.
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Budget Committee, said Tuesday that the numbers could force Congress to make "adjustments" to Obama's $3.6 trillion budget plan.
Count on making some adjustments yourself. When all this hits the fan down the road, you, Jack & Jill taxpayer, will bend over to a degree you've never ever imagined.
*****
While everyone's roasting AIG execs, wonder if anyone will ask whether Barack Obama plans to return the $101,332 bonus last year from AIG in the form of political contributions? (according to Opensecrets.org. and reported Tuesday by CNN)
Just like the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac political contribution list, the biggest recipients from AIG were Senate banking chairman Chris Dodd (a Democrat, if you're wondering) and Barack Obama.
*****
Say what you will about George W. Bush's politics, but unlike his opponents, Bush puts the country first. He showed that during his eight years in office, and he's showing that now:
CALGARY, Alberta (AP) - Former President George W. Bush says he won't criticize President Barack Obama because Obama "deserves my silence," and says he plans to write a book about the 12 toughest decisions he made in office. Bush's speech Tuesday at a luncheon in Calgary, Alberta was his first since leaving office.
He declined to comment about the Obama administration like former Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney said Sunday that Obama's decisions are threatening the nation's safety.
Bush says he doesn't know what he'll do in the long term but says he'll write a book that will let people determine what they would have done if their most important job was to protect the country.
If this were Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter, concerned first and foremost with their living legacies, they'd be in front of microphones every day getting in their digs on the current administration ... as the Clintons and Gore and Carter did to Bush every chance they got starting in January of 2001.
Not only has Bush NOT been visible, he refrains from taking shots when given the chance. Lord knows he easily could when what has happened in Washington the last two months is the antithesis of everything he believes in.
(Imported from March 18, 2009)
Ford CEO Alan Mulally is asking Washington to raise the federal gas tax to make the price per gallon $4 AT THE LOWEST, according to the Wall Street Journal. Ford, you see, has a boatload of these crappy little green cars that it can't unload at any price, largely because the price of gas has fallen about 150 percent since last summer and people are back to buying SUVs and mid-size cars.
This tax increase idea already has been floated on Capitol Hill by a number of libs looking for all the ways they can to pay for their pork. So don't be surprised if by June, we're not well on our way to being right back where we were last summer.
So air up those tires and get a tuneup, eh.
(If you don't recognize the tire/tuneup line, you're probably not alone. That's what Obama said we should all do last summer when gas eclipsed $4. The media, naturally, didn't hold him in anything resembling contempt for saying, essentially, tough sh*t America.)
*****
From Politico:
The eye-popping national debt surpassed $11 trillion Monday, the largest in U.S. history.
The new Treasury Department figures on the national debt were released as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office is expected to project that the annual budget deficit will be higher than previously estimated by the White House's Office of Management and Budget. The debt, which refers to the cumulative amount of money the government owes, hit $10.9 trillion on Friday.
The whopping number has major ramifications for President Barack Obama, who is trying to push through a raft of big-ticket bills on health care, energy, education and climate change — while also attempting to stabilize the swooning economy.
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Budget Committee, said Tuesday that the numbers could force Congress to make "adjustments" to Obama's $3.6 trillion budget plan.
Count on making some adjustments yourself. When all this hits the fan down the road, you, Jack & Jill taxpayer, will bend over to a degree you've never ever imagined.
*****
While everyone's roasting AIG execs, wonder if anyone will ask whether Barack Obama plans to return the $101,332 bonus last year from AIG in the form of political contributions? (according to Opensecrets.org. and reported Tuesday by CNN)
Just like the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac political contribution list, the biggest recipients from AIG were Senate banking chairman Chris Dodd (a Democrat, if you're wondering) and Barack Obama.
*****
Say what you will about George W. Bush's politics, but unlike his opponents, Bush puts the country first. He showed that during his eight years in office, and he's showing that now:
CALGARY, Alberta (AP) - Former President George W. Bush says he won't criticize President Barack Obama because Obama "deserves my silence," and says he plans to write a book about the 12 toughest decisions he made in office. Bush's speech Tuesday at a luncheon in Calgary, Alberta was his first since leaving office.
He declined to comment about the Obama administration like former Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney said Sunday that Obama's decisions are threatening the nation's safety.
Bush says he doesn't know what he'll do in the long term but says he'll write a book that will let people determine what they would have done if their most important job was to protect the country.
If this were Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter, concerned first and foremost with their living legacies, they'd be in front of microphones every day getting in their digs on the current administration ... as the Clintons and Gore and Carter did to Bush every chance they got starting in January of 2001.
Not only has Bush NOT been visible, he refrains from taking shots when given the chance. Lord knows he easily could when what has happened in Washington the last two months is the antithesis of everything he believes in.
(Imported from March 18, 2009)
Sorry, but it isn't that simple
Interesting twist in the Obama campaign message today. The Candidate of Hope, the Candidate of Change, the one who pledged to bring "a new tone" to Washington ... Obama and Biden today on the campaign trail brought instead a familiar refrain.
Bush sucks. Vote for McCain, and you vote for Bush.
Hardly surprising given what the weekend foretold would occur on Wall Street today. The investment bank Lehman Brothers going belly-up, combined with Bank America's pennies-on-the-dollar buyout of Merrill Lynch, sent the DOW plunging by 500-plus points.
And of course this is all Bush's fault. Just more of the same. Housing/credit crisis? Bush's fault. The Libs scream it, the media carries it, and thus it is so. Right?
I wish just once the media would do its job. Other than to act as campaign manager for a Democrat, that is.
Not once have I heard anyone but conservative talkers such as Rush and Hannity and writers such as George Will and Mark Steyn mention the fact that all the bad paper that's acting as an anchor to these financial institutions is largely a product of years of political mismanagement.
Yes, political. Even private companies, especially in this industry, are regulated to death. Not by people who know the business, either. By politicians, some of whom have never worked a day in any area of the industry.
All that bad paper? Mandated. And who led the charge on all these bad loans? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which, whether the media wants to point it out or not, are basically government institutions.
The government set them up. They were not scrutinized. They were not subject to the same SEC regulations other major lenders were. And now they're completely government-run thanks to the housing market crash brought on by all their bad paper.
Nor will the media tell you who ran these organizations and who pocketed millions and then left the American taxpayers to cover for them ... because that's who's paying the tens of billions that it's going to cost just for those two institutions, while millions of Americans are watching investments go up in smoke from the fallout when other institutions, like Lehman Brothers, go bankrupt.
Here's two names you won't hear in the media: Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson.
Raines was White House budget director under Bill Clinton. Later, as president and CEO of Fannie Mae, he accepted what he called "early retirement" in 2004 while under investigation by the SEC for accounting irregularities that resulted in payments to him in excess of $50 million.
Those accounting practices began earlier under Johnson, one of Raines' predecessors as Fannie Mae's CEO and a longtime Democrat bigshot. Both later were also implicated as recipients of millions of dollars worth of subprime loans in the Countrywide Financial scandal.
And guess what both have been doing the past six months? Serving in various capacities on Obama's campaign team.
Why not? After all, I saw today a breakdown of political contributions that came from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from 1989 to 2008. Christopher Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut who oversees along with fellow Democrat Barney Frank the banking committee, topped the list.
Incredibly, Obama is second on the list. And he's been in the U.S. Senate for LESS THAN THREE OF THOSE YEARS!
Still, it's not so incredible when you consider Obama's past dealings with convicted slum lord Tony Rezko and his multi-million dollar piece of property in Chicago he landed in a sweetheart deal.
We still haven't heard questions or seen the media digging into that relationship.
Remember Jack Abramoff? Remember the months upon months of media "investigations" and Senate "hearings" over his lobbying efforts and corrupt dealings with Republicans (and, in stories that were honest, Democrats, too)? That he traded expensive gifts for favors from politicians?
Where are the investigations and hearings over the gross mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the tens of millions that trickled from the top all the way to Democrat offices in Washington, not to mention the enormous tax burden that now rests on our shoulders and the billions lost in investments by those same taxpayers?
Enron? That was a fraternity prank compared to this. But you won't hear about it, you won't see any Senate subcommittee dragging the guilty before the nation to explain their misdeeds before they're then shipped off to prison.
Why? Because there's only one explanation the media cares about. Two simple words.
Bush sucks.
(Imported from Sept. 15, 2008)
Bush sucks. Vote for McCain, and you vote for Bush.
Hardly surprising given what the weekend foretold would occur on Wall Street today. The investment bank Lehman Brothers going belly-up, combined with Bank America's pennies-on-the-dollar buyout of Merrill Lynch, sent the DOW plunging by 500-plus points.
And of course this is all Bush's fault. Just more of the same. Housing/credit crisis? Bush's fault. The Libs scream it, the media carries it, and thus it is so. Right?
I wish just once the media would do its job. Other than to act as campaign manager for a Democrat, that is.
Not once have I heard anyone but conservative talkers such as Rush and Hannity and writers such as George Will and Mark Steyn mention the fact that all the bad paper that's acting as an anchor to these financial institutions is largely a product of years of political mismanagement.
Yes, political. Even private companies, especially in this industry, are regulated to death. Not by people who know the business, either. By politicians, some of whom have never worked a day in any area of the industry.
All that bad paper? Mandated. And who led the charge on all these bad loans? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which, whether the media wants to point it out or not, are basically government institutions.
The government set them up. They were not scrutinized. They were not subject to the same SEC regulations other major lenders were. And now they're completely government-run thanks to the housing market crash brought on by all their bad paper.
Nor will the media tell you who ran these organizations and who pocketed millions and then left the American taxpayers to cover for them ... because that's who's paying the tens of billions that it's going to cost just for those two institutions, while millions of Americans are watching investments go up in smoke from the fallout when other institutions, like Lehman Brothers, go bankrupt.
Here's two names you won't hear in the media: Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson.
Raines was White House budget director under Bill Clinton. Later, as president and CEO of Fannie Mae, he accepted what he called "early retirement" in 2004 while under investigation by the SEC for accounting irregularities that resulted in payments to him in excess of $50 million.
Those accounting practices began earlier under Johnson, one of Raines' predecessors as Fannie Mae's CEO and a longtime Democrat bigshot. Both later were also implicated as recipients of millions of dollars worth of subprime loans in the Countrywide Financial scandal.
And guess what both have been doing the past six months? Serving in various capacities on Obama's campaign team.
Why not? After all, I saw today a breakdown of political contributions that came from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from 1989 to 2008. Christopher Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut who oversees along with fellow Democrat Barney Frank the banking committee, topped the list.
Incredibly, Obama is second on the list. And he's been in the U.S. Senate for LESS THAN THREE OF THOSE YEARS!
Still, it's not so incredible when you consider Obama's past dealings with convicted slum lord Tony Rezko and his multi-million dollar piece of property in Chicago he landed in a sweetheart deal.
We still haven't heard questions or seen the media digging into that relationship.
Remember Jack Abramoff? Remember the months upon months of media "investigations" and Senate "hearings" over his lobbying efforts and corrupt dealings with Republicans (and, in stories that were honest, Democrats, too)? That he traded expensive gifts for favors from politicians?
Where are the investigations and hearings over the gross mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the tens of millions that trickled from the top all the way to Democrat offices in Washington, not to mention the enormous tax burden that now rests on our shoulders and the billions lost in investments by those same taxpayers?
Enron? That was a fraternity prank compared to this. But you won't hear about it, you won't see any Senate subcommittee dragging the guilty before the nation to explain their misdeeds before they're then shipped off to prison.
Why? Because there's only one explanation the media cares about. Two simple words.
Bush sucks.
(Imported from Sept. 15, 2008)
Lessons from Katrina, Gustav
I've had my eye on Hurricane Gustav and, of course, the fallout as it approached the Louisiana coast for a couple of reasons beyond the same concern I have any time a natural disaster threatens to wreck havoc on people's lives. First, I'm planning to be in New Orleans inside of two weeks. And second, it's fascinating to watch the "spin" as this storm threatened an area devastated by Katrina not so long ago.
Well, "fascinating" might be too strong a word. The media's reaction as the storm tore through the western side of Cuba and roared into the Gulf was fairly predictable. The glee they failed miserably to hide when reporting that this storm could overshadow and disrupt this week's Republican Convention was pretty much par for the course.
As was the slew of Libs, some of them elected officials even, making suggestions that Hurricane Gustav was proof that God hates Republicans.
Joke or not, imagine that turned around, with Republicans suggesting such a thing about Democrats. The line of Libs jumping in front of cameras demanding apologies and resignations would stretch from Maine to San Diego. Weekend network "news" shows would have needed three times their normal time slots, if not more, to conduct their symphonies of condemnation.
It's nice to see, for a change, New Orleans on board with the rest of the country in terms of preparedness, though. Two million people evacuated from the area two full days before the storm!
And you know what? FEMA played little role in the process. President Bush didn't drive any of the buses, and Dick Cheney wasn't directing helicopter traffic.
Know what that tells me? Yes, boys and girls, as is the case along the East Coast and in Florida and the rest of the Eastern Gulf Coast, where hurricanes are an annual event, state and local governments have their acts together. They know how to prepare as a storm approaches, and they know how to react after it hits.
Louisiana, New Orleans and the southern one-third in particular, did little to nothing to prepare for Katrina. The people, festering in the pentultimate petri dish of Liberalism, could not help themselves. They suffered mightily because of it.
And Bush took the blame. Wrongly, I might add. Because if it was the federal government's job to lead these people by the hands out of harm's way, why this time did so many manage to make it out without the federal government's assistance?
It's also not the federal government's role to be a first-responder, which Bush took an unfair amount of heat for following Katrina. It's not the federal government's role anywhere else on the continent, so why would it be in Louisiana?
Outside of releasing federal funds, I didn't see FEMA, Bush, Cheney, et al, leading Floridians by the hand last month as Hurricane Fay bounced back and forth across the state. I didn't notice them assisting in numerous states this summer or the last time that the Mississippi River flooded tens of thousands of square miles from the Upper Midwest right through the heart of the country. I can't remember seeing people after their lives are devastated by tornados or caught in record freezes when power is down for weeks point fingers at Washington, asking "Why weren't you here to help us?!"
Preparation for Gustav has been applauded widely and deservedly so. Lessons were learned, apparently. And that's always a good thing.
There's another lesson in this, too, although I doubt it will be acknowledged much.
Gustav shows that there should be no doubt whatsoever that Louisiana's leaders, who prepared their people well this time around, failed them miserably three years ago.
(Imported from Sept. 1, 2008)
Well, "fascinating" might be too strong a word. The media's reaction as the storm tore through the western side of Cuba and roared into the Gulf was fairly predictable. The glee they failed miserably to hide when reporting that this storm could overshadow and disrupt this week's Republican Convention was pretty much par for the course.
As was the slew of Libs, some of them elected officials even, making suggestions that Hurricane Gustav was proof that God hates Republicans.
Joke or not, imagine that turned around, with Republicans suggesting such a thing about Democrats. The line of Libs jumping in front of cameras demanding apologies and resignations would stretch from Maine to San Diego. Weekend network "news" shows would have needed three times their normal time slots, if not more, to conduct their symphonies of condemnation.
It's nice to see, for a change, New Orleans on board with the rest of the country in terms of preparedness, though. Two million people evacuated from the area two full days before the storm!
And you know what? FEMA played little role in the process. President Bush didn't drive any of the buses, and Dick Cheney wasn't directing helicopter traffic.
Know what that tells me? Yes, boys and girls, as is the case along the East Coast and in Florida and the rest of the Eastern Gulf Coast, where hurricanes are an annual event, state and local governments have their acts together. They know how to prepare as a storm approaches, and they know how to react after it hits.
Louisiana, New Orleans and the southern one-third in particular, did little to nothing to prepare for Katrina. The people, festering in the pentultimate petri dish of Liberalism, could not help themselves. They suffered mightily because of it.
And Bush took the blame. Wrongly, I might add. Because if it was the federal government's job to lead these people by the hands out of harm's way, why this time did so many manage to make it out without the federal government's assistance?
It's also not the federal government's role to be a first-responder, which Bush took an unfair amount of heat for following Katrina. It's not the federal government's role anywhere else on the continent, so why would it be in Louisiana?
Outside of releasing federal funds, I didn't see FEMA, Bush, Cheney, et al, leading Floridians by the hand last month as Hurricane Fay bounced back and forth across the state. I didn't notice them assisting in numerous states this summer or the last time that the Mississippi River flooded tens of thousands of square miles from the Upper Midwest right through the heart of the country. I can't remember seeing people after their lives are devastated by tornados or caught in record freezes when power is down for weeks point fingers at Washington, asking "Why weren't you here to help us?!"
Preparation for Gustav has been applauded widely and deservedly so. Lessons were learned, apparently. And that's always a good thing.
There's another lesson in this, too, although I doubt it will be acknowledged much.
Gustav shows that there should be no doubt whatsoever that Louisiana's leaders, who prepared their people well this time around, failed them miserably three years ago.
(Imported from Sept. 1, 2008)
State of our union
President Bush, as most of us know, delivered his final State of the Union address Monday night. Three things happened, which happen during pretty much every State of the Union address.
1. The president's party stood and applauded a lot.
2. The president laid out a lot of issues he deems important.
3. The fat lush posing as a senator from Massachusetts fell asleep five minutes into the speech.
But I'm not here to talk about Ted Kennedy.
GW talked a lot about two things in his address: the economy and Iraq. I watched more because I wanted to see what he had to say about the former than the latter, which is hardly even an issue anymore.
Two things struck me. First, this economic stimulus package. Sure, I'd like the government to give me back a few hundred dollars that was my money to begin with. I'm sure there are few among us who will tear up that check. But all the wrangling seems to be about who gets what, if any, and how much when this amounts to a piece of masking tape over a crack in a water pipe.
Yes, the economy gets a boost as people run out to spend their $300 or $600 or whatever. And after the money's spent?
Want to boost the economy? How about reining in at least a handful of the many confiscatory regulations on businesses? Try announcing the suspension of federal taxes on each gallon of gasoline. Talk about stopping inflation in its tracks. Or how about, instead of giving me back a few hundred dollars of my money now, we immediately institute a 5 percent across-the-board reduction in federal income tax? That way, we keep more of our money each and every month instead of this one-time, hide-and-go-seek ploy.
Of course, to do any of that, our federal government would have to begin practicing what each and every one of us supposedly must do to maintain a roof over our heads: Fiscal responsibility.
GW also said in his address that he would not allow this stimulus package to pass his desk if it contained the usual pork. He also said he would issue an executive order to stop discretionary spending on projects that are slipped by the thousands at the last minute without a word of debate or discussion into every bill Congress approves.
These are also known as "earmarks" ... something we all heard a lot about from Libs running for Congress 18 months or so ago. They accused Republicans of running our federal deficit through the roof with this kind of spending, even though they were as big a part of the problem. They vowed to put a stop to it, and the voters swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
And in the year since Democrats have been in control of the House and Senate, earmark spending has increased. Not only that, but when word filtered down today (Monday) that the president was going to issue such an executive order, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (the House and Senate Lib majority leaders, in case you're not sure) went ballistic.
I applaud GW for taking a stand. I'd also like to give him a swift kick in the fanny for waiting so long to wield the veto pen, but that's another story.
One other part of his address with which I want to take issue is immigration. Plugging the holes in the dam is the first part, of course. Bravo to that, although let's build the freaking fence already. The money was approved for that, what? Three years ago? And we've doubled the number of border guards, apparently. Now how about we take off their handcuffs and allow them to do their jobs?
But I leave the Bush Reservation when he gets to what we do with the millions of illegal immigrants already here. Politicians, GW included, like to use words like "compassion" and "reasonable."
Here's reasonable: Enforce our freaking laws.
People here illegally need to be dumped back wherever the hell they came from. There have been millions upon millions of people who have come to this country and gone through a process. There are millions more waiting in line, doing it the way it's supposed to be done.
The American people spoke loud and clear ... wielded their veto pen, so to speak ... when GW, a handful of RINOs (including John McCain) and the Libs attempted to back-door three separate amnesty bills on us in the last year and a half.
I say it's high time Washington listens to us for a change.
(Imported from Jan. 29, 2008)
1. The president's party stood and applauded a lot.
2. The president laid out a lot of issues he deems important.
3. The fat lush posing as a senator from Massachusetts fell asleep five minutes into the speech.
But I'm not here to talk about Ted Kennedy.
GW talked a lot about two things in his address: the economy and Iraq. I watched more because I wanted to see what he had to say about the former than the latter, which is hardly even an issue anymore.
Two things struck me. First, this economic stimulus package. Sure, I'd like the government to give me back a few hundred dollars that was my money to begin with. I'm sure there are few among us who will tear up that check. But all the wrangling seems to be about who gets what, if any, and how much when this amounts to a piece of masking tape over a crack in a water pipe.
Yes, the economy gets a boost as people run out to spend their $300 or $600 or whatever. And after the money's spent?
Want to boost the economy? How about reining in at least a handful of the many confiscatory regulations on businesses? Try announcing the suspension of federal taxes on each gallon of gasoline. Talk about stopping inflation in its tracks. Or how about, instead of giving me back a few hundred dollars of my money now, we immediately institute a 5 percent across-the-board reduction in federal income tax? That way, we keep more of our money each and every month instead of this one-time, hide-and-go-seek ploy.
Of course, to do any of that, our federal government would have to begin practicing what each and every one of us supposedly must do to maintain a roof over our heads: Fiscal responsibility.
GW also said in his address that he would not allow this stimulus package to pass his desk if it contained the usual pork. He also said he would issue an executive order to stop discretionary spending on projects that are slipped by the thousands at the last minute without a word of debate or discussion into every bill Congress approves.
These are also known as "earmarks" ... something we all heard a lot about from Libs running for Congress 18 months or so ago. They accused Republicans of running our federal deficit through the roof with this kind of spending, even though they were as big a part of the problem. They vowed to put a stop to it, and the voters swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
And in the year since Democrats have been in control of the House and Senate, earmark spending has increased. Not only that, but when word filtered down today (Monday) that the president was going to issue such an executive order, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (the House and Senate Lib majority leaders, in case you're not sure) went ballistic.
I applaud GW for taking a stand. I'd also like to give him a swift kick in the fanny for waiting so long to wield the veto pen, but that's another story.
One other part of his address with which I want to take issue is immigration. Plugging the holes in the dam is the first part, of course. Bravo to that, although let's build the freaking fence already. The money was approved for that, what? Three years ago? And we've doubled the number of border guards, apparently. Now how about we take off their handcuffs and allow them to do their jobs?
But I leave the Bush Reservation when he gets to what we do with the millions of illegal immigrants already here. Politicians, GW included, like to use words like "compassion" and "reasonable."
Here's reasonable: Enforce our freaking laws.
People here illegally need to be dumped back wherever the hell they came from. There have been millions upon millions of people who have come to this country and gone through a process. There are millions more waiting in line, doing it the way it's supposed to be done.
The American people spoke loud and clear ... wielded their veto pen, so to speak ... when GW, a handful of RINOs (including John McCain) and the Libs attempted to back-door three separate amnesty bills on us in the last year and a half.
I say it's high time Washington listens to us for a change.
(Imported from Jan. 29, 2008)
Stop the world!
Enough already with this Alberto Gonzalez crap! For crying out loud, the media's acting like this is Watergate II ... of course, the Libs and the media (redundant, I know) have maintained a constant drumbeat since early 2000, bashing everything Republican and perking up like a part-time cocktail waitress behind on her trailer rent upon hearing that the first of six lottery numbers IS ON HER TICKET! every time they get even a hint of something that could lead to BUSH'S IMPEACHMENT (which is basically every day, twice on Fridays).
So eight U.S. attorneys lost their jobs. Boo-freakin-hoo. In the end, they work for Gonzalez, who works for President Bush. Now granted, Bush would have been better served by firing everybody left over from the previous administration the minute he took office, same as Slick Willie did back in 1992, but that wasn't his style. Who gives a rat's ass who sat in on which meetings or who was in the e-mail loop when the firings were coming down?
And Gonzalez lied to the media about a meeting he attended on the matter? Why, how dare he! Why, he shouldn't just be fired! He should be thrown off a cliff, on fire, after being sexually assaulted by a syphilitic water buffalo!
Everybody! Wake up! If you're not doing your job to your boss' liking, guess what? You're FIRRRRRRED!
And if there really was this deep, dark cover-up ... if these lawyers (God, this has to be the first time EVER that ANYONE lamented a freaking lawyer losing his job!) were onto something BIG that would embarrass conservatives or even (breathlessly here) lead to Bush's beheading on the White House lawn during an anti-war protest by lesbians, don't you think that at least ONE of the eight would have come forward and SAID SO by now?
My 4-year-old burst into tears this afternoon because several raindrops made these strange, dark spots on her dress on our way from the garage out to the car. Trust me, folks, on the scale of Do We Give A Shit? this personal family fashion tragedy deserves only a degree less of the country's attention than eight U.S. attorneys losing their jobs!
(Imported from March 26, 2007)
So eight U.S. attorneys lost their jobs. Boo-freakin-hoo. In the end, they work for Gonzalez, who works for President Bush. Now granted, Bush would have been better served by firing everybody left over from the previous administration the minute he took office, same as Slick Willie did back in 1992, but that wasn't his style. Who gives a rat's ass who sat in on which meetings or who was in the e-mail loop when the firings were coming down?
And Gonzalez lied to the media about a meeting he attended on the matter? Why, how dare he! Why, he shouldn't just be fired! He should be thrown off a cliff, on fire, after being sexually assaulted by a syphilitic water buffalo!
Everybody! Wake up! If you're not doing your job to your boss' liking, guess what? You're FIRRRRRRED!
And if there really was this deep, dark cover-up ... if these lawyers (God, this has to be the first time EVER that ANYONE lamented a freaking lawyer losing his job!) were onto something BIG that would embarrass conservatives or even (breathlessly here) lead to Bush's beheading on the White House lawn during an anti-war protest by lesbians, don't you think that at least ONE of the eight would have come forward and SAID SO by now?
My 4-year-old burst into tears this afternoon because several raindrops made these strange, dark spots on her dress on our way from the garage out to the car. Trust me, folks, on the scale of Do We Give A Shit? this personal family fashion tragedy deserves only a degree less of the country's attention than eight U.S. attorneys losing their jobs!
(Imported from March 26, 2007)
The lunacy behind Libby
For most of the media, Scooter Libby's guilty verdict proved the "vast administration conspiracy" to discredit any Iraq War critic. For the hysterical Nancy Pelosi and equally clueless Harry Reid, the verdict served as "a clear repudiation of President Bush's foreign policy," particularly with regard to Iraq.
Say what? The Libby trial had barely more to do with the Iraq War than if it snows in Oklahoma next week. But there is a conspiracy involved. And the media played no small role in creating it.
It's funny (but sickingly typical) how when the media makes mention of the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame "scandal," it conveniently disregards facts. And these FACTS are not spun from the administration. There have been dozens of independent verifications on every single one. To wit:
Joe Wilson took a trip to Niger in 2002 (pre Iraq invasion) to "investigate" claims that Iraq had attempted to buy or bought yellowcake uranium for use in its weapons programs. His wife, Valerie Plame (then a CIA analyst who had previously held "non-official cover" status ... she wasn't then and never was any kind of undercover operative) suggested to her bosses that he be sent. But Wilson, upon returning, wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times debunking the Iraq-Niger connection (which later proved to be bunk) and stated falsely that Vice President Dick Cheney's office sent him on the mission.
Reporters, naturally, began asking questions, since the opinion piece was published four months after the Iraq invasion and the "Bush Lied!" campaign was well underway. The questions within the White House, meanwhile, consisted largely of "who is this Wilson guy?" and "who sent him to Africa?"
Well, the answers quickly were found. Syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote the initial piece detailing Plame's role. The column, naturally, identified Plame as Wilson's wife and showed that through her job as a CIA employee, she was able to help arrange his trip. More reports followed, both about Plame's role and Wilson's credibility, seeing as how he brought back not a shred of evidence (or even notes!) supporting his claims.
Now I suppose those on the Left feel that the White House should have simply said, "Oh yeah, we sent him!" when in fact they didn't and "yes, he's right!" when he wasn't. Of course, for those of us who live in a reality-based world, that's not the way things work.
Wilson, of course, became an instant celebrity with the mainstream media, which has shown an unabashed eagerness to promote any Bush critic on any subject. And Wilson certainly wasn't shy about making the talk show circuit his home and having his and his wife's pictures splashed across magazine covers.
He also, it later was learned through a slew of people both inside and outside political circles, wasn't shy about bragging previous to all of this about who his wife was and who she worked for. Funny how that and a handful of other facts escaped attention when Wilson, attempting to save face, began screaming that his wife had been "outed" by the evil Bush administration.
The Libs followed suit with their favorite word: "INVESTIGAAAAAAATION!" And federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald began the witch hunt. The media breathlessly asked "Are they gonna get Bush?!" and then "Are they gonna get Cheney?!" and then "Are they gonna get Rove?!"
The answer, of course, was no. Why? In part because Wilson, a wanna-be diplomat whose claim to fame was a three-year ambassadorship to the African nations of Gabon, Sao Tome and Principe (no, I am not making those countries up) under President Clinton, all the while was being exposed as nothing but a liar, and his wife, it was learned, couldn't have been "outed" because she wasn't "in."
Enter Scooter Libby, an aide to Cheney, whose recollections of conversations two and three years previous didn't jibe with what others had told a grand jury. An investigation that had taken years and cost tens of millions of dollars ... well, they gotta get somebody, right?
So the Libby Lied Trial got underway, even though Fitzgerald by this point had learned that Plame's "outing" had originally come from Richard Armitage, the former deputy to Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was anything BUT a Bush administration cronie.
Fitzgerald ignored this, though. He ignored a lot, as did the Libby trial judge, who didn't allow into evidence anything regarding Plame's CIA status or a Senate Intelligence Committee report exposing Wilson and his Niger trip as an overall fraud, along with a range of other documents that would have undercut the foundation of Fitzgerald's investigation.
So Libby was found guilty of perjury and obstruction, even though many prosecution witnesses couldn't even remember details of alleged conversations and even though Libby had little, if anything, to do with a "leak" that in the end wasn't one to begin with.
Someone 'splain to me how that qualifies as a "repudiation of Bush's Iraq policy." But the media started this with a theme and, by God, it's gotta end it that way. The facts? Mere stepchildren of inconvenience.
The media, of course, also continues its drumbeat of how this trial's outcome leaves open numerous questions about the Bush administration's role in a leak that wasn't.
But the questions I'd like answered (HA!) are:
Why, in four years, has Joe Wilson never once been called upon to testify under oath about any of this? Because he'd have to A) lie under oath; or B) expose himself as a fraud?
Why, after finding no actionable evidence after a three-year investigation, did Fitzgerald insist on wasting MORE time and money (OUR money) on a worthless trial. To justify his existence? (You know, the parallels between this and the bogus Duke lacrosse rape investigation are amazing!)
And what about the CIA's role in this from the beginning? Think they might have been just a teensy bit peeved about the egg on their collective face over perceived faulty pre-war intelligence or the heat they took over 9/11 OR the fact that under the Bush administration, overhauls to the agency had taken place?
I'd say all the answers are rather obvious.
(Imported from March 7, 2007)
Say what? The Libby trial had barely more to do with the Iraq War than if it snows in Oklahoma next week. But there is a conspiracy involved. And the media played no small role in creating it.
It's funny (but sickingly typical) how when the media makes mention of the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame "scandal," it conveniently disregards facts. And these FACTS are not spun from the administration. There have been dozens of independent verifications on every single one. To wit:
Joe Wilson took a trip to Niger in 2002 (pre Iraq invasion) to "investigate" claims that Iraq had attempted to buy or bought yellowcake uranium for use in its weapons programs. His wife, Valerie Plame (then a CIA analyst who had previously held "non-official cover" status ... she wasn't then and never was any kind of undercover operative) suggested to her bosses that he be sent. But Wilson, upon returning, wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times debunking the Iraq-Niger connection (which later proved to be bunk) and stated falsely that Vice President Dick Cheney's office sent him on the mission.
Reporters, naturally, began asking questions, since the opinion piece was published four months after the Iraq invasion and the "Bush Lied!" campaign was well underway. The questions within the White House, meanwhile, consisted largely of "who is this Wilson guy?" and "who sent him to Africa?"
Well, the answers quickly were found. Syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote the initial piece detailing Plame's role. The column, naturally, identified Plame as Wilson's wife and showed that through her job as a CIA employee, she was able to help arrange his trip. More reports followed, both about Plame's role and Wilson's credibility, seeing as how he brought back not a shred of evidence (or even notes!) supporting his claims.
Now I suppose those on the Left feel that the White House should have simply said, "Oh yeah, we sent him!" when in fact they didn't and "yes, he's right!" when he wasn't. Of course, for those of us who live in a reality-based world, that's not the way things work.
Wilson, of course, became an instant celebrity with the mainstream media, which has shown an unabashed eagerness to promote any Bush critic on any subject. And Wilson certainly wasn't shy about making the talk show circuit his home and having his and his wife's pictures splashed across magazine covers.
He also, it later was learned through a slew of people both inside and outside political circles, wasn't shy about bragging previous to all of this about who his wife was and who she worked for. Funny how that and a handful of other facts escaped attention when Wilson, attempting to save face, began screaming that his wife had been "outed" by the evil Bush administration.
The Libs followed suit with their favorite word: "INVESTIGAAAAAAATION!" And federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald began the witch hunt. The media breathlessly asked "Are they gonna get Bush?!" and then "Are they gonna get Cheney?!" and then "Are they gonna get Rove?!"
The answer, of course, was no. Why? In part because Wilson, a wanna-be diplomat whose claim to fame was a three-year ambassadorship to the African nations of Gabon, Sao Tome and Principe (no, I am not making those countries up) under President Clinton, all the while was being exposed as nothing but a liar, and his wife, it was learned, couldn't have been "outed" because she wasn't "in."
Enter Scooter Libby, an aide to Cheney, whose recollections of conversations two and three years previous didn't jibe with what others had told a grand jury. An investigation that had taken years and cost tens of millions of dollars ... well, they gotta get somebody, right?
So the Libby Lied Trial got underway, even though Fitzgerald by this point had learned that Plame's "outing" had originally come from Richard Armitage, the former deputy to Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was anything BUT a Bush administration cronie.
Fitzgerald ignored this, though. He ignored a lot, as did the Libby trial judge, who didn't allow into evidence anything regarding Plame's CIA status or a Senate Intelligence Committee report exposing Wilson and his Niger trip as an overall fraud, along with a range of other documents that would have undercut the foundation of Fitzgerald's investigation.
So Libby was found guilty of perjury and obstruction, even though many prosecution witnesses couldn't even remember details of alleged conversations and even though Libby had little, if anything, to do with a "leak" that in the end wasn't one to begin with.
Someone 'splain to me how that qualifies as a "repudiation of Bush's Iraq policy." But the media started this with a theme and, by God, it's gotta end it that way. The facts? Mere stepchildren of inconvenience.
The media, of course, also continues its drumbeat of how this trial's outcome leaves open numerous questions about the Bush administration's role in a leak that wasn't.
But the questions I'd like answered (HA!) are:
Why, in four years, has Joe Wilson never once been called upon to testify under oath about any of this? Because he'd have to A) lie under oath; or B) expose himself as a fraud?
Why, after finding no actionable evidence after a three-year investigation, did Fitzgerald insist on wasting MORE time and money (OUR money) on a worthless trial. To justify his existence? (You know, the parallels between this and the bogus Duke lacrosse rape investigation are amazing!)
And what about the CIA's role in this from the beginning? Think they might have been just a teensy bit peeved about the egg on their collective face over perceived faulty pre-war intelligence or the heat they took over 9/11 OR the fact that under the Bush administration, overhauls to the agency had taken place?
I'd say all the answers are rather obvious.
(Imported from March 7, 2007)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)