- Can someone answer one question for me. We just went through months of both parties bickering of raising the debt limit---then why would Pres. Obama propose spending another $447 billion?
- And why would anyone believe another $447 billion will work when over a trillion dollars and six stimulus packages did not? Remember all of those "shovel-ready" jobs that were suppose to be created? (last June, even President Obama admitted in N.C., "shovel-ready was not as...uh...shovel-ready as we expected). Of course, last week, Pres. Obama said nothing about "shovel-ready" jobs.
- Or look at this another way. The stimulus plan created or saved 940,000 jobs in 2010. So far this year, it's been 872,000. So when you take the stimulus money that was spent both years---each job ended up costing the taxpayer almost $500,000.00---that's EACH job (John Crudele).
- One commentator remarked, "The president's plan is a bit like having someone break your leg then give you crutches and call it a stimulus. Might it not be better than breaking your leg in the first place?" (Michael Tanner)
- "Recession Is Over News"---Bank of America announced it plans on letting 30,000 employees go. They cut 6,000 jobs already this year. The Bronx NY is now being called, "The Borough of the Jobless." The unemployment rate is over 12% (I grew up in the South Bronx and it was a rat hole then).
- And the U.S. Census reported today that the poverty rate soared to a 20 year high---15.1%.
- Third Way, a close ally of the Obama administration (White House Chief of Staff is a former board member of this organization) reported Pres. Obama is lagging behind Republicans when it comes to getting moderates on board. Of those "swing voters" polled, 16% said they would still definitely vote for Pres. Obama while 25% of them said they would definitely not vote for Pres. Obama in 2012. Third Way also reported, for the president to win the next election, he will need to persuade those who switched to return to voting for him. USA Today reports he's going to have a hard time pulling this one off since he's on shaky ground in 12 battleground states (USA Today).
- In last night's debate, Gov. Rick Perry was taken to task for signing a bill signing a 2001 bill allowing illegal immigrants to receive in-state tuition. The "Dream Act" gets conservatives tied up in a knot. I know most conservatives and Republicans do not agree with my endorsement of many aspects of The Dream Act. The Dream Act does not mean automatic qualifying for in-state tuition. Most Dream Act criteria include, but are not limited to, the individual must have entered the country before age 16 and remained in the country for at least 5 straight years. The individual must have graduated from high school or obtained a GED. The individual must not have a criminal record. In addition, the individual will usually have a specific time period to get a degree (usually 6 years) or spend at least 2 years in the military (as I've written before, I believe if an illegal alien takes the oath to protect our country, he/she should be fast-tracked to American citizenship. If you're willing to die for this country, the country should return the favor with full citizenship). That's why The Dream Act does not give me the willies.
- Having said that, an illegal's dream of getting a college degree should not have more value than an American student's dream. If I were a college admissions counselor, with an American citizen and an illegal immigrant vying for one remaining spot, I would choose the American citizen. I would not have any problem reconciling that dilemma. If, on the other hand, the American student is a yo-yo, a complete knucklehead who things the world owes him something and the illegal immigrant shows a history of hard work, taking his/her education seriously and met all the criteria of The Dream Act, I would choose the illegal immigrant. Again---no problem in reconciling that dilemma either. Slam dunk.
- But, after having said all of this, I'm obliged to still ask this question: It's illegal to be an illegal immigrant, right? So reconcile that dilemma Mr. Politician.
- Since the creation of the Tea Party in 2009, CNN has made fun of the Tea Party calling them "tea baggers" and more. In addition, the Tea Party has been called vicious names such as racists and terrorists by many on the left side of the political isle. Why then would CNN hold a debate hosted by the Tea Party last night, a bunch of people they perceive as being racists, terrorists and tea baggers? Just askin'.
- If you recall, one of the reasons given to pass ObamaCare was to contain costs. If that's the case, why then are the actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services now reporting that health care spending will reach 19.8% of GDP by 2020, up from about 16.6% when Pres. Obama took office? In fact, at the time, the Obama administration proclaimed health care costs were spiraling out of control when health care spending was actually at historical lows at the time of around 4%. These same actuaries report spending will leap to 8.3% by 2014. Remember when the president said no one will lose their current plan, and many already have? (and, of course, that's not even mentioning the over 1,400 waivers given out---Oh, I just did). Appears the "cost containment" promise is also full of very big holes.
- If the economy is improving as so many on the Left are reporting (as Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said two weeks ago), why are record number of people on food stamps? Oh, that's right, there are almost 20 million people out of work. How could I forget?
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
$500 Grand Per Job; Obama on Shaky Ground in 12 Battleground States; Poverty Rate Soars; Conservatives & The Dream Act; Why Did CNN Hold the Debate? ObamaCare Not Holding Down Costs
Pres. Obama introduced his $447 billion jobs plan. A lot of economists said it could work---if we had $447 billion.---Leno.
Posted by Jerry at 3:06 PM