President Obama, the Democrat party, and the Progressive Left are quick to blame the nation’s economic problems on the “Bush tax cuts for the wealthy”.  President Obama continues to claim that after 3 years in office, the economic failures of the Obama administration are due to the situation he inherited from President Bush.  However, the facts do not support President Obama’s claims.

Blaming the country’s economic woes on the Bush tax cuts ignores the facts.

The argument against the Bush tax cuts attempts to imply that the government “spent” money that it did not have only to benefit a few wealthy people and cost the government revenue that it could have used for other purposes.  However, the facts do not support this argument.

Federal revenues did indeed shrink in the first two years following the Bush tax cuts, but the cause of the decline in revenue can not be based entirely on the Bush tax cuts.  That year revenues also fell due to the burst of the tech bubble.  After the first two years of the tax cuts, federal revenues increased.  Federal revenues for the years following the Bush tax cuts and tech bubble are as follows (in trillions):

• 2003 – $1.782
• 2004 – $1.88
• 2005 – $2.153
• 2006 – $2.406
• 2007 – $2.567

The fact is that the Bush tax cuts helped lead to a 44% increase in Federal revenue between 2003 and 2007.

President Obama, who has delivered the largest yearly deficits in the history of the country, also likes to point to the deficits caused by the Bush tax cuts.  However, the deficits under the Bush administration and a Republican controlled congress fell from $413 billion in 2004 to $161 billion in 2007.  None of the yearly deficits topped a trillion under Bush.

The President isn’t interested in raising additional revenues, but rather seeks to satisfy his burning desire to try to take wealthy tax payers down a peg or two out of his desire to bring about “economic justice”.  Years of failed progressive policies have failed to raise the poor and middle class up, so the President seeks to take away from the wealthy based on a warped sense of fairness that President Obama shares with his fellow Marxists, Socialists, and Progressives.

If the President really wanted to help the poor and middle classes, he would seek solutions that increase individual liberty and prosperity by shrinking the bloated out of control Federal government and reducing the burden on the country of supporting the Federal bureaucracy.

The Zogby poll of the Obama approval rating continues to show a decline of support for the President’s agenda.  As recently as October, Zogby had the Obama approval rating at 49%.  The poll indicates that the Obama approval rating is 6% among Republicans and un-changed among Independents at 39% when compared to a poll conducted earlier in November.

Perhaps more worrisome for the President is that the Obama approval rating among Democrats has slipped from 78% to 72%.

The Zogby poll of the Obama approval rating also polled several 2012 Presidential race matchups.  The poll shows President Obama losing out to Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Jeb Bush.  The poll also has President Obama barely ahead of Sarah Palin 41% to 40%.  Romney had the best showing of 44% to 38%.  Also of note, approximately 17% of those polled indicated “Neither” when presented with a list of Republicans versus Obama.

The Zogby numbers for the Obama approval rating are below the Real Clear Politics average of 46%.

The Obama approval rating is suffering as Conservatives are unhappy with Obama’s far left agenda and the Democrat far left are unhappy with Obama’s lack of progress on implementing his leftist agenda. 

During Obama’s 2008 campaign, if it indeed it ever ended, the President offered hope and change driving support among independents who expected a change in the way that Washington works.  To the left, this meant implementing an agenda that pushed America closer to state capitalism or further to outright socialism.  So far, Obama has failed to deliver either.

Obama has few options over the next 2 years.  He can either work with the Republican controlled House and deliver policies more aimed at the political center or demonize the Republican party by claiming they are stopping him from delivering on all his “hope and changey” promises.

Obama once said that he would rather be a great one term president than an OK two term president.  He will more likely end up being neither.

Ben Smith from Second City walked around the Rally for Sanity on Saturday with a sign that read “Obama = Keynesian?”.  You can see the video of these well informed people attending the Rally for Sanity on several blogs this morning taking issue with the question of “Obama = Keynesian?”

The best part of the video is 40 seconds in where a frustrated woman exclaims “…what proof do you want?  He was born in Hawaii”.  The logic seems to be that if Obama was born in America, by definition, Obama is not a Keynesian.

Thankfully, some people seemed to at least know and understand the question about Obama being Keynesian versus Obama being Kenyan although they did not seem so sure the Keynesian theory.

For those of you that may have traveled to the Rally for Sanity on the HuffPo bus,  Keynesian economic theory is based on ideas put forth by 20th century British economist John Maynard Keynes.  Keynesian theory advocates a large role for the government in charting the course of the economy.  Oh, and Kenyans live in the East African country of Kenya.

Although some people believe that Obama is Kenyan as they believe he was born there, most people believe that Obama is a Keynesian based upon actual verifiable proof.

As the video shows, for every nut job at a Tea Party rally, there is at least an equal amount of nut jobs supporting “the other side”.

Oh, and if you didn’t catch the pun in the first sentence, don’t forget to go out and vote on November 3rd.

The ground zero mosque is a $100 million Islamic community center that is planned to be built 2 blocks away from the site of the 9/11 attacks that were carried out by Islamic extremists.

Speaking about the ground zero mosque, President Obama indicated that Muslims have the same religious freedom rights as other Americans.  “That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances…”  Obama further elaborated,  ”This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.”

Obama’s statement supporting the ground zero mosque dodged the question on if the ground zero mosque should be built by asserting the “right” to build the mosque.

The Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”  America has a strong history of supporting religious freedom and religious tolerance.

Does the group planning to build the ground zero mosque have the right to build a mosque near ground zero?  Absolutely.  However, the real question is should the ground zero mosque be built.

A recent poll shows that Americans oppose the building of the ground zero mosque.  The question becomes, does the wishes of the community trump the right of others to practice their religion as they see fit.

It is easy to assert the opinion that Muslims have the right to build mosques and worship as they prefer to worship.  It is also easy to assert that Muslims have the right to build a mosque anywhere that doesn’t violate local laws.

The issue of the ground zero mosque becomes complicated when the question shift from “does somebody have the right” to “should somebody exercise that right”.

What do you think?

To consider the question, one needs to understand what is a socialist or socialism.  According to Wikipedia “Socialism is a political philosophy that encompasses various theories of economic organization based on either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources”.  Wikipedia adds “Socialists generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation.  This in turn creates an unequal society, that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximize their potential, and does not utilize technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public”.

The argument from people claiming that Obama is not a Socialist is that under the Obama administration, there is still private ownership over the means of production.  Many people go on to claim that Obama is really a Corporatist.  Recently, Ron Paul argued that Obama is not a Socialist, but rather a Corporatist.

According to Merriam Webster, Corporatism is “the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction”.  To paraphrase, the means of production are still owned privately, but the government exercises a great deal of control over the means of production.

The argument goes that since Obama did not take over the health care industry 100% in health care reform or provide a public option, he is not a Socialist and he fits more in the mold of a Corporatist.

However, the argument misses the mark.  Obama has been very open in stating that he favors a single payer health care system where the government runs the industry.  He believes that our economy is unfair and that one of America’s biggest faults is that our system doesn’t lead to the “social justice” that he believes is lacking in society. 

Obama has also taken over GM and ownership of the company is mostly shared between the Government and Unions.  The Credit Card reform puts strict limits on credit card companies even putting government oversight that will stifle innovation.  The pending financial reform would have the government decide when a company engages in behavior that is “too risky” and enables the government to step in an take over companies that the government deems to not be well run.

Rather than get bogged down in the debate on the various degrees of policies that make Obama a Socialist or a Corporatist, the underlying fact is that Obama is not a Capitalist and would prefer that there is a great degree of government involvement in the markets rather than support the free market system that has dominated the American system since the founding of the country.

America became an economic super power by embracing free market principles for the majority of the history of the country.  Problems often arise in the American Capitalistic free market system when the government steps in to exercise some control of markets.  Obama decries banks that made bad loans, but fails to mention that the government requires banks to make a certain percentage of loans to high-risk low income borrowers if the bank wants to operate on the national level.  This isn’t to say that banks didn’t make stupid decisions that helped lead to the financial melt down of the last few years, but the government played a large role in pushing the behaviours that lead to the crisis.

It is not important to label President Obama a Socialist, Corporatist, Marxist, or Communist.  It is important to understand that President Obama does not believe that Capitalism and free markets are an important part of what makes America great, but rather something that needs to be changed to redistribute power and wealth.

Rather than be against Obama, Socialism, Marxism, or Communisim and argure which philosophy most accurately describes what Obama believes, we need to be for the American free market and the system of Capitalism that made America great.

Obama hinted during the middle of the financial crisis “For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of an economic crisis is not only in bad taste – it’s bad strategy – and I will not tolerate it as president”.

It would seem unfair in the grand scheme of things for some people to be making millions of dollars while some people are out of work.  However, is it the job of the federal government to ensure that when times are tough, some people that are doing well should have their salaries cut or pay some sort of penalty?

Obama’s “pay czar” has stated openly that nobody should ever make over $500,000 except in very rare circumstances.  Odd considering that the President earned over 10 times that much last year (federal salary + other personal income).

Recently, President Obama strayed off teleprompter to say that “I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money”.  The question is, what happens when you get to that certain point where the President thinks that you have made enough money.  Maybe even more importantly, who gets to decide when you have enough?

The Federal Government much less the President, does not have the power granted in the Constitution to decide when an American has enough.  It is quite worrisome that in the Obama vision of America, there are limits on success.  Perhaps even more troubling is that many Americans tend to agree.

One of the key principles that this country was founded on is that individuals are free to experience as much success or failure that they are willing to bring upon themselves.  If I can create a product or service that people just have to have and make millions of dollars doing it, should the government step in at some point and say “OK, you can stop now.  You have enough”?

Granted, as a society in general, Americans feel that those with the means should give back.  However, do the American people or the government have the right to force this upon another individual?

America was founded on the concept of individual rights and not collective rights.  “We” do not have the right to free speech, religion, and to bear arms among many others, but “You” and “I” individually do.  However, when the rights of one are taken away, the rights of each of us are eroded.  If “I” lose my right to make over $500k, then so do “you”.

The problem is that many Americans do not care since they do not see taking away the right of some individuals to earn over a certain amount it also takes away their right to do so.  Since capping pay way into the six figure range doesn’t impact most people, many Americans don’t care.

Americans are just beginning to wake up an realize what has happened to our freedoms over the last 100 years or so.  Let us hope that it isn’t too late.

Putting the federal deficit in terms that Americans can understand, when Obama entered office, the public debt amounted to roughly $56,000 per household.    Today it is $72,000 per household and is headed to more than $170,000 per household in 2020.

According to the CBO, the deficit will equal almost 90% of GDP in 2010. 

It is important to note that the deficit adds to the national debt and creates a death spiral where additional debt adds to the spending that must happen each year to cover the interest payments on that debt.  This spiral puts additional pressure towards increasing deficits.

It is also important to note that deficits are mostly in control of the President and Congress.  For 2010, the Obama administration and Congress chose to spend over $1.4 trillion more than the government makes from taxes and other revenues.  To reduce or eliminate the deficit, the government needs to plan to spend less than what it believes it will take in.  Currently, the government is planning to spend far more each year than what it takes in.

Americans have just started to come out of a debt crisis caused by Americans and businesses taking on more debt than they can handle.  Now the government is making the same mistakes by tripling the budget deficit and pushing the country further and further into debt.

By Robb Austin

Politicians know the best supporters are those who are not afraid to be public about their support – putting a yard sign up or a bumper sticker on their car. This is a clear signal they are proud of who they like and want the world to know about it. During the 2004 presidential election, Democrats desperately wanted John Kerry to defeat President George W. Bush, and when he did not, supporters continued to brandish their Kerry bumper stickers long after the election was over.

It was not uncommon to see Kerry for President bumper stickers on cars for years afterward, as the disappointment over his loss never waned. Thus, it was no surprise after the 2008 presidential election of Barrack Obama for supporters to celebrate his victory in a public way – wearing shirts with his name on it or displaying a bumper sticker on the car. They were excited for his election, and had great expectations for his success.

This is the one-year anniversary of President Obama’s historic swearing-in. Yet in the past year things have changed, and displays of public support for President Obama are now muted. Many still hope for his success, and believe he is trying hard, yet there is an uneasy feeling he has not delivered on his campaign promises.

There is a proverbial saying: Success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan. This holds true in politics. As President Obama struggles to explain policies, which remain unpopular to a majority of voters, the overwhelming display of public support that once existed is now fading from view.

As his political troubles mount, his job approval ratings continue to decline, and some professional pollsters say they are headed for a free fall. The President remains popular with his core support base, namely African-Americans and far-left liberals, but he is no longer supported among independents and moderates.

While every President goes through periods of unpopularity, the fact remains that the historical aspect of the Obama election has worn off, and voters now expect him to deliver on his promises. His handling of health care is a good example; the country does not want the proposed changes, but the President and his congressional majority are crafting the legislation anyway. This is largely being done in secret- with few, if any, Americans knowing exactly what is in the health care package, or how it will affect them.

The legislation is being written by insiders and lobbyists in the backrooms of Washington; yet, the President campaigned on the promise that he would change the way Washington works, and pledged that his programs would be drafted in the open with input from voters. Now it has come to light that some lawmakers were offered secret sweetheart deals in exchange for their vote on health care, and this has made many voters suspicious and mistrusting of both Congress, and the President. There is no question President Obama has been damaged in the process- and while it is not too late for him to recover, the soaring expectations, which accompanied his election, are forever gone.

Voters are letting the President know, in various ways, what they think of the job he is doing, and their public display of support or disapproval, or lack thereof, is part of this process. The Obama bumper sticker, once so prevalent, seems to now be disappearing.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Robb_Austin
http://EzineArticles.com/?Where-Have-All-the-Bumper-Stickers-Gone?&id=3691843

As pointed out in a recent news story, during the 2008 campaign Senator Obama told a Grand Rapids group on October 2, 2008: ”I will finally end the abuse of no-bid contracts once and for all”.

As recently as March 4, Obama vowed to “end unnecessary no-bid and cost-plus contracts,” adding: “In some cases, contracts are awarded without competition….And that’s completely unacceptable.” 

However, despite all the campaign rhetoric and recent Presidential spin, the Obama administration continues to award no-bid contracts.  Even more troubling, they are awarding these no-bid contracts to firms that donated heavily to the Obama campaign as well as other Democrat organizations.

A recent $25 million contract was awarded to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc., a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi,  to provide “rule of law stabilization services” in war-torn Afghanistan. 

According to official records, Vincent Checchi donated close to the maximum amount to the Obama campaign as well as several other liberal activist groups.

This is a prime example of why pork added to bills is so corrupting.  According to a post at HotAir, “It’s a feedback loop to power; those favored with contracts get more money to make more donations to the people who get them the contracts.  This is the main reason why pork is so corrosive to clean government.”

As Obama’s poll numbers continue to fall, he will continue to blame Bush for all of his challenges.  However, now that he has fallen short on promises such as transparency, not raising middle class taxes, no lobbyists, and ending no-bid contracts it becomes clear that his biggest challenge is keeping promises.

Today, the daily tracking poll shows the Obama presidential approval rating dropping to 45%.  This is the lowest Obama presidential approval rating so far.

The interesting thing is the breakdown of the results of the Obama approval poll.  “Fifty-two percent (52%) of Democrats Strongly Approve while 68% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major political party, just 16% Strongly Approve and 51% Strongly Disapprove”.  With 51% of independents strongly disapproving, Obama will have a tough time keeping is approval poll numbers up.

The Obama approval polls show that the Obama presidential approval rating continues to decline.  As his policies and the policies of the Democrat lead congress continue to become increasling unpopular, pressure will be put on Obama and congress to stop pushing new national debt exploding policies that most Americans disagree with.