Well Reaganesque it was not. Actually one of the more interesting things of the speech was Speaker Pelosi in the background. The fact that she is third in line to the Presidency really, really scares me. Her face looked like it was going to crack from smiling too much. Giddy is the word I would use. Anyway on to the actual speech.
President Obama said that he pushed for Porkulus, “Not because I believe in bigger government. I don’t.” I had to backtrack the video because I missed too much of the speech from laughing too hard. Are you kidding me?
Then he followed up with the comment that “failure to act would have worsened our long-term deficit by ensuring weak economic growth for years.” Not according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office who said that it would be better to do nothing than to implement the
stimulus porkulus plan.
On taxes 95% will receive a tax cut. FactCheck.org had some interesting comments regarding this statement.
Obama said his stimulus program provides a tax cut for “95 percent of working households” and later said that a cut would go to 95 percent of “working families.” That calls for some explanation. The key words are “working” and “cut.”
He’s referring to the “making work pay” refundable tax credit, which is only available to workers. As we pointed out previously on The FactCheck Wire, there would be no credit for retirees or those who are unemployed. A Tax Policy Center analysis found that a more modest 75.5 percent of all households would benefit, whether their members are working or not.
It is also questionable whether all of the tax refunds can properly be called “tax cuts.” The credit is refundable and, therefore, is going to many who earn so little that they pay no federal income taxes in the first place. The White House calls them tax cuts, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office officially scores the bill’s refundable credits under “direct spending.”
Those tax cuts will likely come out to $8 a week. Wow, color me excited. Spending spree!
Then with the porkulus package that he said will save or create 3.5 million jobs, with most in the private sector. This statement has never smelled right with me. How do you determine whether or not you “saved” a job?
I’m so glad that Vice President Biden is going to head the oversight of this stimulus plan. Why would we want to mess with Joe when he does a great job all by himself? By the way Joe, the website “number” is http://www.recovery.gov.
“The flow of credit is the life blood of our economy.” Hmm… I thought profit was. Color me now confused.
“I reject the view that says our problems will merely take care of themselves. That says government has no role for laying the foundation of our common prosperity.” Still thinking this speech is “Reaganesque”? It seems so far that he is bound and determined to have government do everything. Reagan said that government is the problem, not the solution.
His energy initiatives that will cost (as of now) $15 Billion which will pay for wind, solar, clean coal, fuel efficient cars. No mention of increasing our domestic oil supply or tapping our natural gas supply. Ummm… what about ANWR will that even be considered? Can we knock off the nonsense about it? What about nuclear?
But beware of the “ravages of climate change.” Ok, Al Gore.
But hey we’re going to cure cancer! I hope everybody is ok with the healthcare system Canada or Great Britain has because that is where we are headed.
Regarding education… I just hate Federal government involvement in this anyway, and the thought of the Federal role increasing is just depressing. Has anybody noticed that the more money we spend on the public education system the worse kids seem to do? His only alternative was charter schools. No other options evidently in the mind of President Obama. Only. Government. Can. Help.
Let’s “make sure we do not pass along a debt they (our children) can not pay.” Well Obama didn’t inherit this deficit, he likes mentioning that quite a bit, but he will certainly expand it. But hey we can breath a sigh of relief that he and Congress signed into law a recovery bill “free of earmarks.” I’m glad I wasn’t drinking anything when he said that.
The only thing I can find myself agreeing with is that the cost of the war will be listed in the budget. That is good, it should be. Also the increasing the numbers of soldiers and Marines, increasing their pay, and expanding healthcare and benefits of veterans (unless it comes under the socialized medicine plan).
Regarding national security, the War on Terror wasn’t mentioned once. Terrorism was mentioned once. Terrorists were only mentioned twice. Though I doubt anyone can believe in “swift and sure justice” for them with his administration.
Yes change we can believe in.
Latest posts by Shane Vander Hart (see all)
- Iowa Republicans Oppose National Education Standards - May 23, 2016
- Candidate Interview: Christian DenOuden (Iowa House District 39) - May 23, 2016
- Iowa GOP State Convention Live Blog - May 21, 2016