•…Saving Medicare: The Wall Street Journal says Democrats cut more than $700 billion from Medicare “by cranking down Medicare's price controls for hospitals and by gutting Medicare Advantage.” They then “used the ‘cuts’ to hide ObamaCare's true 13-figure cost.” Republicans “have a plan to save” Medicare for current seniors and future generations.
•…Stopping the Tax Hikes: The OC Register says President Obama’s coming tax hikes could make our struggling economy “much worse.” Ernst & Young says they would destroy more than 700,000 jobs. Economists, small business owners, and the American people all oppose them. The House passed a bipartisan bill to stop all of the tax hikes on middle class families and small businesses – now Senate Democrats need to do the same.
•… Replacing the ‘Sequester’ Cuts: The Obama administration admits the ‘sequester’ defense cuts it demanded would “hollow out” our armed forces and devastate our national security. The House passed a bill back in May to replace these cuts with common-sense savings and reforms. The president, however, still hasn’t outlined a plan of his own to stop them.
•…Creating New Jobs: The unemployment rate has been higher than eight percent for 42 months, and yet the centerpiece of the president’s campaign is a small business tax hike that would make things worse. Republicans have passed more than 30 jobs bills that remove barriers to job growth, cut red tape, and help keep jobs in America (and bring home some of the jobs that have gone overseas). These bills remain blocked by Senate Democrats.
And just in case you missed that last paragraph...
Today’s report is part of an ongoing effort on the part of House Republicans to hold the administration accountable for its failed policies that are making it harder for the private-sector to create jobs. In addition to today’s report, the Energy & Commerce Committee is conducting a separate, ongoing investigation into the backroom deals & secret negotiations that went on between the Obama administration and the health care industry as the law was developed.
The House Energy & Commerce Committee is out with a new report today on how President Obama’s government takeover of health care is leading to: “Higher Costs, More Confusion and Less Coverage” for America’s job creators – including members of the president’s own jobs council. Members of the council – who were brought together last year to advise the president “on ways to create jobs, opportunity, and prosperity” – will have trouble fulfilling that mission within their own companies thanks to ObamaCare’s vast labyrinth of mandates, penalties, taxes and regulations, according to internal documents provided to the committee. The committee’s findings confirm that ObamaCare has not only failed to live up to its promise to “bend the cost curve” and allow Americans to keep the coverage they like, it has – as economists and experts warned - made it harder for job creators to put more Americans back to work. Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) explains:
“This analysis makes it clear that the president’s health care law impedes companies’ ability to grow by imposing burdensome mandates, taxes, and fees. To make matters worse, many of the law’s most onerous mandates have yet to be written, leaving job creators with many unanswered questions regarding how much the law will ultimately cost and how to plan for these expenses. This report echoes numerous other analyses that project the president’s health care law will actually hurt job creators by increasing costs and ultimately could lead them to drop coverage.”
Today’s report is part of an ongoing effort on the part of House Republicans to hold the administration accountable for its failed policies that are making it harder for the private-sector to create jobs. In addition to today’s report, the Energy & Commerce Committee is conducting a separate, ongoing investigation into the backroom deals & secret negotiations that went on between the Obama administration and the health care industry as the law was developed.
"After a week of withering attacks on President Obama's fiscal record, top Democrats on Sunday defended the president's plans for shaving down the deficit -- but said balancing the budget now would actually be a bad idea. "
I swear. There is just no limit to their deceit. They would think nothing of standing at the podium holding a picture of an elephant and do everything possible to convince you it was a zebra.
I agree about the primary model. I don't see the value of any of us registering as one party or another except that it helps the politicians. I think they should rise and fall on their own performance, and not because of party affiliation.
But I don't consider GWB's presidency a catastrophy. Sorry Dude. He could have done a few things better, but all in all, we were better under him than now. Obama's presidency is a catastrophy, IMHO.
Wow! That is a hefty chunk of information! Is that your work? If so...I to you! I want to read it more thoroughly but that might take some time to digest. Thanks for posting.
In the meantime, I do agree and have no doubt that much of what is in there is true - but I also disagree that both parties are the same. I have met and worked with a fair number of politicians and government entities in the past. They are deeply, inherently divided in many ways. Perhaps in the end it all works out the same, but it is encouraging to note that not all politicians are cut from the same cloth.
Sure robots can so some of those things but you still need someone to make them, sell them and service them. And there are so many other types of jobs beyond the factories. Lab techs, scientists, writers, doctors, researchers, innovators and so on. A robot is only as good as the company that owns it.
No Hugger, that is specifically NOT what I said. My point was that while I don't care if he's wealthy or living on a shoestring - as long as he is living within his means and not a financial train wreck. I don't care if he has money or not, but if he is in debt up to his eyeballs it tells me he doesn't make smart choices and isn't very responsible.
I think it has always been this way Dude and nothing new. In the presidential primaries, you cannot vote outside your party. A registered Democrat, for example, can only vote for a democratic nominee. But in the general election people can vote either way.
That's all very true Hugger - but there is a fairly simple reason for that. It's called supply and demand. It's hard to believe in just a generation or two we have fallen so far so fast, but it was not that long ago that American business's were exploding with new products and innovations. So much so that there was actually such a huge demand for workers the companies not only paid good salaries and benefits, but they had very good (free) training programs for employees, as well.
Then ever so slowly the government got greedy and started creating expensive new regulations, burdonsome laws and taxes, and all sorts of constraints which caused these business's to fail or go to other countries with less stringent demands.
If you want to see those competitive salaries and benefits come back, we need to get those companies flourishing so that they, once again, need to compete for YOUR skills.
According to the congressional budget office, that is just another liberal myth.
Between 2007 and 2009, (once the Democrats took over Congress and the recession started) the earnings accrued after taxes by the top 1% of wage earners fell 37%. And even before taxes their earnings fell 36%. Meanwhile, the lowest 20% of earners saw their income grow by 3%, while the middle class dropped a modest 2%. This means that the incomes of the top 1% fell 18 times more than middle class incomes. In 2007, the top 1% earned 16.7 percent of all after-tax income, but by 2009, it had shrunk to 11.5%.
So while the rich saw their fortunes plummet, the poor gained, and the middle class treaded water. So much for an ever-widening gap. And as far as the amount paid in taxes, the top 1% paid an average of 28.9%, while the middle class paid 11%.
The (very) liberal New York Times had the gall to say in March, “New statistics show an ever-more-startling divergence between the fortunes of the wealthy and everybody else — and the desperate need to address this wrenching problem.”
One problem; the Times didn’t get their statistics from the CBO.
Nope. One of the best lessons my parents ever taught me was to always be self-sufficient. They said you never knew if something might happen later in life and you ended up on your own. (how right they were )
With that said, I had a (male) headmaster who once told me, "You can fall in love with a rich man just as easily as you can fall in love with a poor man." At the time I was offended, but in retrospect I suppose he had a point. I would never marry for money - but neither would I marry someone who was a walking fiscal nightmare. If he's not smart enough to manage the little money he has, he's not the guy for me.
Well the outcome of the election is anyone's call at this point, but I'm glad to hear you plan to hang around either way. There will still be plenty of issues to discuss no matter the outcome.
RE: Romney and Ryan really better than Obama and Biden benefiting most Americans?
Here's an oldie but goodie for those of us who need a laugh (but actually there's a kernel of truth in all of this..)Author Unknown...(but brilliant)
Dear President Obama,
Patriotic retirement:
There's about 40 million people over 50 years old in the work force -
pay them $1 million apiece severance with stipulations.
1) They leave their jobs. Forty million job openings - Unemployment
fixed.
2) They buy NEW American cars. Forty million cars ordered - Auto
Industry fixed.
3) They either buy a house/pay off their mortgage - Housing Crisis
fixed.
4) They buy stock. Voila! The stock market rebounds with no help from
the feds.
WHAT? This too easy for ya?