Obama and the Commoners

Screen Shot 2015-01-24 at 9.42.44 AMIf you read this blog or follow me on twitter or on facebook, then you know that I am generally NO FAN of president Obama … so it may seem a little strange that I’m actually siding with the same person that I consistently call a moron.

The recent Obama Interviews on Youtube have generated a lot of buzz with the mainstream “conservatives” out there. Of course, most of these “conservatives” are really Republicans using conservative as a buzz-word to broaden their base. In truth, mainstream Republicans and “conservatives” are NOT for smaller government. Sure – they may claim they are for smaller government, but they also support such massive intrusions on our liberties such as The Patriot Act.

con·serv·a·tive  /kənˈsərvətiv/: a person who is averse to increases in governmental power, influence, and regulation. This includes especially the federal level, but also the state and local levels.

 

But I digress – let’s get back to Obama and Youtube.

He certainly is NOT a king.

Conservatives and Republicans have consistently beat the drum that “Obama is not a King!!” Well, then you idiots need to remember your own drumbeat. He certainly is NOT a king. Conducting Youtube interviews with videobloggers is fine. As a matter of fact I respect that.

Conducting Youtube interviews with videobloggers is fine.

Does that mean I agree with the interviews? No. Does that mean I liked all the questions? No. Am I agreeing with Obama? Hell no.

Oh – but they are not “real reporters”. They don’t “fact check” anything. /sigh

Do I need to remind anyone of how effectively silly those arguments are? Sorry – but while “mainstream” journalists may be “educated” and may be “trained”, that certainly does not mean they are flawless and unbiased. Need I mention Dan Rather and the Killian Documents? Ok – what about Fox’s recent stupid comment about No-Go Zones in Paris?

My point is simple. The internet has already drastically changed the way we both distribute and receive information. It is the “great equalizer”. Obama is NOT a king and the POTUS absolutely should spend time “with the commoners.” Get off your hypocritical high-horses Republicans – this is another example of why I only vote Republican because it is the lesser of 2 evils.

Give me common interviews and information all day long. I’m fine with the unfiltered.

Where’s Obama’s Spin?

You would think that since Obama is the smartest guy on the planet – even above Al Gore, he would be able to spin the whole Libya thing into a positive right? After all, he has spun the following (albeit some more successfully than others):

  • Social justice
  • Distributing wealth – Joe the Plumber
  • Tea partiers – clinging to Bibles and guns
  • Voting rights violations – dropping the suit against the Black Panthers
  • Stupid cops – hello Cambridge!
  • The Border in Arizona – suing the state
  • Etc, etc

With all that success, why doesn’t he just take a swipe at Clinton for not taking care of this issue and continue to blame Bush for not being tougher on Libya. Obama could do it all in one big spin.

 

Here is Obama’s problem. He simply doesn’t come across as having a set of nuts like W or Reagan did. I’m not justifying the subversion (by any of our recent presidents) of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 11 of the US Constitution. My point is that he just comes across as weak. Nobody (especially people like Qaddafi) takes him seriously. He’s got to spin better!

Here’s some help for Obama. Simply review this speech a few times. Reagan had his faults, but people believed him when he made statements like this one.

Today we have done what we had to do. If necessary, we shall do it again. It gives me no pleasure to say that, and I wish it were otherwise….He counted on America to be passive. He counted wrong. I warned that there should be no place on Earth where terrorists can rest and train and practice their deadly skills. I meant it. I said that we would act with others, if possible, and alone if necessary to ensure that terrorists have no sanctuary anywhere. — President Ronald Reagan

Do I agree with the current action in Libya? From a current financial standpoint and a current world-view standpoint – not really. From a “powers of the Executive” and a conservative standpoint – nope.

However, remembering Libya’s past history in terrorism and other things, I say “Why not let the French cover this one?”

War on the Poor and Obama

credit to AsSeenInShreveport blog

I started out reading this Crooks and Liars post to laugh at the progressive rant against the evil republicans. It turns out that is was a very good insight into some of the problems that Obama faces.

Let’s start with the original reason for the blog post – republicans waging a war on the poor.

Minnesota Republicans Want To Bust Poor People Who Carry Cash

It’s really funny how progressive liberals can’t read. If you read the tag line and the article, the information is spun so that it appears “poor people” in Minnesota can’t carry more than $20 cash. However, if you actually read HF 171, you soon find out that is not the case.

As most average people know, especially in an entitlement-rich state like Louisiana, the use of debit cards for “food stamp – now called SNAP” programs and the TANF program ($175.2million from Washington for FY2011) is abused heavily.

Yes, I know people who are on assistance so I’ve seen these abuses first-hand. Not that everyone abuses the system, but is it my social responsibility for you to be able to buy lobster and steak with a Louisiana Purchase card? Should our tax dollars help fund those that sell their benefits or use a taco truck to steal $1,000,000 worth of benefits – like Vincent Edward Daprince?

But I digress so let’s get back to Minnesota. If you actually read the text of HF 171, you will see that none of that rhetoric is true, of course. The bill amendment simply is putting some common-sense restrictions on Minnesota’s system. Can the Minnesota poor carry more than $20 cash on them? Sure – but they need to earn it on their own – not off the backs of the MN taxpayers.

So what about the War on Obama?

This is where the article actually had some decent insight. If you can stomach some of the comments in response to the stupid article, you start to get a picture of the current attitude of progressive liberals to the Teleprompter-In-Chief. Here are a select few.

There comes a time where we decide to be the change no matter who sits in the White House. This had better damn well be one of those times. – karoli

Since most people seem to be hanging their hopes on the man in the WH it would be nice to know what the former community organizer thinks – and if it differs with his corporate agenda. Because most assuredly he will be our only choice in 2012. Excuse me if I would find it comforting to know if he actually gives a shit about us. – Rich H

No. I’m waiting for his eloquent speech on the merits of a strong working class…I’m not holding my breath. He’s more likely to give a speech about the greatness of banks. – Edwin

These comments are directly from the hearts and minds of progressives who believe “in the cause” and are commenting against republicans.

Come to think of it – Obama is definitely a better president than Bush. While it took Bush 8 years to piss off his base, Obama has done it in 3.

Just what did Obama inherit

click for larger image

I don’t know how many times Obama has spouted off about “inheriting” this and all that. He makes me tired just listening to the rhetoric so I decided to remind everyone about a few things.

(Well, that and my cousin Daniel decided to jump in the pool with some rhetoric without facts.)

Ok – so let’s first remind ourselves of what branch of government controls the money? Easy – Congress does.

Wait a minute! You thought the president controlled the money? Wrong. The president (and staff) submit a budget to Congress, but no money can be spent without Congressional approval. Here is how it basically works or you can read here for more:

  • President submits the budget request each year to Congress.
  • The House and Senate committees draft resolutions and send them to the respective floors.
  • Once a resolution is reached after conferences, etc, a conference report reconciles the Senate and House versions to become binding.

Now that we’ve established that Congress really controls the purse strings, how does that factor into what Obama inherited? To answer that, we now need to review the timelines.

First a little disclaimer. I am not siding 100% with Republicans. Most of them have been nearly as fiscally irresponsible as the Democrats. The problem here is pretty clear.

There is a HUGE gap between those that believe government is the answer and those that believe too much is the problem. — me on Facebook

Ok – so what about the timelines and Obama’s claimed inheritance? Just a few years ago, 2006 to be exact, the Democrats took control of the House and Senate. That means that since then, they have controlled the purse strings.

Wait just a second? You mean that Bush and the Republicans weren’t responsible for the 2007 economic fallout? For the most part – no they weren’t. However, Bush and many Republicans did push for the first bail-out. That was a huge mistake, and was the final nail in Bush’s fiscal coffin with a lot of conservatives.

Yeah – but the economy was failing before 2007? Well, yes and no. We were steaming along pretty good, but the ice berg was just under the surface. You see, back in 1998 there was this thing called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which I posted about back in 2008. Like I said back then, it was a combination of lax oversight by Congress, and the natural greed which precipitated everything.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that loaning money to people who are nowhere near qualified – is a recipe for disaster. Like most recipes, simmering for a while turns out the best. That’s exactly what happened in the Subprime Mortgage fiasco in 2007. The rest of the pot just boiled right on over.

Yeah, yeah – so what about the time-line? Ok, back to the refresher on Congress controlling the purse strings. Remember that “budget surplus” that everyone touts from the late 90’s under Clinton, which was really a projected surplus? Remember those great economic times everyone loves to talk about? What party controlled both houses of Congress starting from1994-1999? It was the Republicans – from 1994 until 2007.

Ok – so what about the Reagan Revolution? Well, the Senate was controlled by Republicans from 1981-1985, and then the Democrats took over both houses. Just a few short years later, we experienced a mild recession during George H. W. Bush’s term. Do you see the pattern here?

Thank you very much you liberal morons.