New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Obama's REAL agenda: The mot expansive government in American history.

Barbella

Barbella

Senator
“Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go,” President Obama said last week, flanked by uniformed firefighters and law-enforcement officers. “Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find child care for their kids.” He went on: “Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced. FBI agents will be furloughed.”

Scared yet? In his Saturday radio address, the president made clear who was at fault for this impending Armageddon: “Are Republicans in Congress really willing to let these cuts fall on our kids’ schools and mental health care just to protect tax loopholes for corporate jet owners? Are they really willing to slash military health care and the Border Patrol just because they refuse to eliminate tax breaks for big oil companies?”

The president is obviously going all-out — but not to avoid the $85 billion in spending cuts, known as the sequester, set to kick in on Friday. Obama doesn’t want to make a deal with Republicans. His fear-mongering is part of a concerted plan that extends far beyond the sequester crisis: to obliterate the Republican Party as a viable force in American political life.

His self-righteous rhetoric obscures a bitter truth: Obama is not trying to unite the country. He’s waging a class-based battle for political gain. His goal is to win back the House for Democrats in 2014, giving him a united Congress for his last two years in office and allowing him to pursue the most expansive government in American history.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/president-obamas-real-agenda-88288.html#ixzz2MJ8eMj9a
 
Multiply THIS:

For all the bed-wetting environmentalists do over how climate change might affect the present ecosystems of California, they always seem to conveniently forget what the state looked like before it joined the Union.

Left to nature, the Los Angeles River could support maybe 250,000 people. But thanks to human terraforming, the Los Angeles Basin now supports a population of almost 4 million and an economy worth $831 billion.

Just north of Los Angeles, the San Joaquin Valley used be a barren desert. But now, thanks to human engineering, dams, canals and aqueducts have transformed the Central Valley into the richest agricultural region in the world.

None of this could be accomplished today. Los Angeles' water-fueled growth permanently altered entire habitats, including, most famously, the Owens Valley, which once supported a lake and farming community. It is now a desert.

Unfortunately, California environmentalists are trying to turn much of the Central Valley's farmland back into desert too. Thanks to the Endangered Species Act, federal courts have ordered farmers to divert hundreds of billions of gallons of water away from crops and into the Sacramento River, where it is supposed to help revive the delta smelt.

The diverted water has not helped the smelt much, but it has turned hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland fallow and sent unemployment in some farming communities as high as 40 percent.

California could solve this problem by building more dams, thus adding water capacity. But the state hasn't built a major new dam since 1979 and none is on the drawing board.

One reason is the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Modeled after the federal National Environmental Policy Act, CEQA was intended to make infrastructure planning easier. As the accompanying chart shows, it is anything but an easy law to follow. Unlike most state environmental planning laws, CEQA allows plaintiffs to recover attorney's fees from defendant infrastructure developers (whether they be state, city or private actors).

This has created an entire environmental lawsuit industry -- a very profitable one that chills development. According to the California Chamber of Commerce, CEQA has become "a morass of uncertainty for project proponents and agencies alike."

Local government smart-growth plans have made it next to impossible for developers to build single-family homes near job centers such as the Bay Area or Los Angeles. As a result, real estate prices along California's coast are among the highest in the nation, forcing many middle-class families to downsize or move elsewhere.

California's once-famous highway system is also failing to serve the state's population. According to the Federal Highway Administration, only 28 percent of the state's highways were rated in good condition in 2010. Another 48 percent of the state's highways were rated acceptable, while 24 percent were rated poor.

The highways are only expected to get worse. California's Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that $6 billion a year is needed to replace the degraded portions of the state's highways. But Gov. Jerry Brown has only budgeted $1.5 billion annually for this purpose.

Instead of spending on highways, the Democratic governor has committed $5 billion to a high-speed rail plan that was originally sold to voters as a $40 billion project. The train, which supposedly would allow riders to travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in two hours, saw its costs balloon to more than $100 billion before its scope had to be significantly limited, reducing costs to $68 billion.

But Brown has no plan for coming up with remaining $63 billion. The project has not even broken ground yet, and if no new funding is located, state taxpayers will have wasted billions on 130 miles of track connecting Fresno and Bakersfield -- derisively described as the train to nowhere.
Click to expand...

California's past leaders built dams, highways and cities, making their state not only a habitable place but a powerful engine for economic growth. Today they are driving out their own middle class by choking off the growth of their cities, taking away their water to save bait fish and wasting their money on vanity projects like high-speed rail. This is the real train to nowhere, and California is all aboard.
Click to expand...

by roughly 50.
 
Ok, so let's actually try to have a reasonable conversation about taxes and spending....
1. Does the government spend too much money? Yes.
2. If we cut the budget by the amount of the deficit, could it be done without massive unemployment? No.
3. Is it necessary to increase taxes? I believe it is.
4. Will tax increases hurt the economy? Based on the tax increases of the Reagan, Bush and Clinton years...I don't think so.

So what is the appropriate solution? I think that the areas where the federal government is spending money that are not national interests should be gradually eliminated. Day care is not a national issue. Interstate highways are. Museums (like the railroad museum in Murtha's old district) are not national interests....The power grid, national airports, defense, the FBI....those are national....interstate commerce, food production and inspections....This isn't rocket science. The federal government built a parking lot in Talkeetna Alaska...there isn't a national park there and there are no federal employees there....So why is there a federal parking lot there?

Taxes should also be gradually increased. It should be a seperate item on our paychecks and clearly labeled as debt reduction. Those taxes should automatically go up each year that the national debt does. That should get people's attention. The law should stay in effect forever, but should drop those taxes to $0 when there is no debt. If the debt goes up by 2% in 2013 then taxes in 2014 should go up by that much....
 
Ronald Reagan's budgets tripled the national debt. What was his agenda? George W. Bush doubled the national debt? Care to comment on his intent?
 
I'm having a hard time figuring out what the 99% of the top cite, has to do with its one sentence conclusion. The screeder might just as well have followed all his blah-blah-blah with, "This PROVES that President Obama is a one-legged pangolian anteater.
 
Oh, well...at least you're showing some honesty by admitting that your reading comprehension isn't up to par....
 
I almost agreed with you until I got to the last paragraph. Government spendthrifts being what they are can't handle a blank check....they'll find SOMETHING to spend our money on, whehter it's needed or not. There HAS to be more oversight, and a spending limit.
 
Barbella said:
I almost agreed with you until I got to the last paragraph. Government spendthrifts being what they are can't handle a blank check....they'll find SOMETHING to spend our money on, whehter it's needed or not. There HAS to be more oversight, and a spending limit.
Click to expand...

None of which you cared about when Bush was President....nor stopped you from voting for him and Republicans from 2002 to today.
 
GordonGecko said:
None of which you cared about when Bush was President....nor stopped you from voting for him and Republicans from 2002 to today.
Click to expand...

And Barbie's deep concern for the deficits and the national debt will vanish as soon as another republicon wins the White House. Let's hope she has that concern for a long, long, long time, the US can't stand having another stinking lying republicon in charge.
 
middleview said:
Ok, so let's actually try to have a reasonable conversation about taxes and spending....
1. Does the government spend too much money? Yes.
2. If we cut the budget by the amount of the deficit, could it be done without massive unemployment? No.
3. Is it necessary to increase taxes? I believe it is.
4. Will tax increases hurt the economy? Based on the tax increases of the Reagan, Bush and Clinton years...I don't think so.

So what is the appropriate solution? I think that the areas where the federal government is spending money that are not national interests should be gradually eliminated. Day care is not a national issue. Interstate highways are. Museums (like the railroad museum in Murtha's old district) are not national interests....The power grid, national airports, defense, the FBI....those are national....interstate commerce, food production and inspections....This isn't rocket science. The federal government built a parking lot in Talkeetna Alaska...there isn't a national park there and there are no federal employees there....So why is there a federal parking lot there?

Taxes should also be gradually increased. It should be a seperate item on our paychecks and clearly labeled as debt reduction. Those taxes should automatically go up each year that the national debt does. That should get people's attention. The law should stay in effect forever, but should drop those taxes to $0 when there is no debt. If the debt goes up by 2% in 2013 then taxes in 2014 should go up by that much....
Click to expand...

well said... couldn't agree more!
 
jammer said:
And Barbie's deep concern for the deficits and the national debt will vanish as soon as another republicon wins the White House. Let's hope she has that concern for a long, long, long time, the US can't stand having another stinking lying republicon in charge.
Click to expand...

touche...
 
middleview said:
Ok, so let's actually try to have a reasonable conversation about taxes and spending....
1. Does the government spend too much money? Yes.
2. If we cut the budget by the amount of the deficit, could it be done without massive unemployment? No.
3. Is it necessary to increase taxes? I believe it is.
4. Will tax increases hurt the economy? Based on the tax increases of the Reagan, Bush and Clinton years...I don't think so.

So what is the appropriate solution? I think that the areas where the federal government is spending money that are not national interests should be gradually eliminated. Day care is not a national issue. Interstate highways are. Museums (like the railroad museum in Murtha's old district) are not national interests....The power grid, national airports, defense, the FBI....those are national....interstate commerce, food production and inspections....This isn't rocket science. The federal government built a parking lot in Talkeetna Alaska...there isn't a national park there and there are no federal employees there....So why is there a federal parking lot there?

Taxes should also be gradually increased. It should be a seperate item on our paychecks and clearly labeled as debt reduction. Those taxes should automatically go up each year that the national debt does. That should get people's attention. The law should stay in effect forever, but should drop those taxes to $0 when there is no debt. If the debt goes up by 2% in 2013 then taxes in 2014 should go up by that much....
Click to expand...

I agree with this guy.

I would love to see a line item on my paychecks that says "national debt reduction"
 
jammer said:
And Barbie's deep concern for the deficits and the national debt will vanish as soon as another republicon wins the White House. Let's hope she has that concern for a long, long, long time, the US can't stand having another stinking lying republicon in charge.
Click to expand...

This post has no value.

Remember the republican have to change many views before they have a chance at the white house anyway, but posting what you think Barb would say is hearsay. lame
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top