Author Topic: Obama: Corruption, Deception, Dishonesty, Deceit and Promises Broken  (Read 221879 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #725 on: June 06, 2011, 02:57:00 PM »
June 6, 2011, 2:40 p.m. EDT
Firms halting coverage as reform starts: survey
30% of companies say they’ll stop offering health plansStories You Might Like
By Russ Britt, MarketWatch
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/firms-halting-coverage-as-reform-starts-survey-2011-06-06





LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) — Once provisions of the Affordable Care Act start to kick in during 2014, at least three of every 10 employers will probably stop offering health coverage, a survey released Monday shows.

While only 7% of employees will be forced to switch to subsidized-exchange programs, at least 30% of companies say they will “definitely or probably” stop offering employer-sponsored coverage, according to the study published in McKinsey Quarterly.

The survey of 1,300 employers says those who are keenly aware of the health-reform measure probably are more likely to consider an alternative to employer-sponsored plans, with 50% to 60% in this group expected to make a change. It also found that for some, it makes more sense to switch.

Click to Play  Are profit forecasts too optimistic? A 4% economic-growth rate for 2011 now looks like a pipe dream. In that case, assumptions about corporate earnings may be high, especially with the Federal Reserve's latest bond-buying program winding down. Kelly Evans discusses.
“At least 30% of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage, even if they completely compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries,” the study says.

It goes on to add: “Contrary to what employers assume, more than 85% of employees would remain at their jobs even if their employers stopped offering [employer-sponsored insurance], although about 60% would expect increased compensation.”

A number of competitors will emerge in the insurance market once reform provisions start to take effect, according to the McKinsey Quarterly study. These firms will be needed to provide a transition for those moving from employer-sponsored insurance to other coverage options.

Insurers will have to adapt to new realities and look for ways to keep the policy holders they have, the study says, but that shouldn’t be difficult. “Our research shows that more than 70% of employees would stay with their insurer if it offers a seamless transition and appropriate products. Each payer also must understand how changing employer-benefit strategies will shift the risk profile of its membership and set prices appropriately.”

Russ Britt is the Los Angeles bureau chief for MarketWatch.
 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #726 on: June 07, 2011, 10:05:41 AM »
REVEALED: Waiving Obamacare: HHS never had authority to issue exemptions (Not in the original law)
Hotair ^ | 06/07/2011 | Tina Korbe

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2731197/posts





According to testimony at a recent hearing of the House Oversight health care subcommittee, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) doesn’t actually grant the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to exempt employers from the law’s annual minimum health care coverage requirements. The Daily Caller reports:

Language granting HHS that power was never in the original law. Instead, through new rules and regulations, HHS gave itself the power last summer using a broad interpretation of certain parts of the law.

The annual limit requirement waivers exempt recipients for one year from having to increase the amount of health care coverage they provide their workers. Each year between now and 2014, the minimum annual limit rises to a new, higher amount. Though the waivers are only for one year, recipients can reapply and be re-approved every year through 2014.

Heritage Foundation health policy expert Edmund Haislmaier said HHS “exceeded its statutory authority” by issuing such waivers.

And as of May 13, 2011, HHS had issued quite a few — 1,372. But maybe such a wide interpretation of the regulatory power granted to HHS by Obamacare was warranted? Not so, says Haislmaier. In 21 other sections of PPACA, Congress explicitly grants HHS waiver authority with respect to other provisions. Obviously, that suggests Congress would have explicitly granted the Department the authority to waive the minimum annual coverage requirements, as well.

Why does this not surprise me? This administration has made no secret of its willingness to legislate through the executive branch. But this example exudes a special irony: The executive branch has to improperly legislate to undo — not extend – the legislative branch’s unwieldy legislation.

It’s all made worse, of course, by the way in which HHS has granted the waivers — with little to no transparency and with every appearance of political favoritism. But one congressman seeks to change that. Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), along with 31 of his Congressional colleagues, recently sent a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to request clarifications about the waiver application and grant process.

“It is sheer hypocrisy to say that this is about healthcare ‘equality,’ but still grant special privilege exemptions to labor unions and businesses,” Huelskamp said in a news release. “Evidence continues to flow forth that these waivers are sometimes about who you know, as a multitude of them have been granted to labor unions that have supported the president or to businesses that are in former Speaker Pelosi’s district. This entire waiver process screams of political favoritism and is an abomination to the democratic process, to the concept of equality under the law, and to individual freedom and liberty.”

The letter asks Sebelius to identify the number and type of denied applications, the number and type of pending applications and the average time it takes to make a decision about whether to grant a waiver. That information would be a good start — if Sebelius responds — but, in light of Haislmaier’s testimony, the secretary has even more explaining to do.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #727 on: June 07, 2011, 06:58:45 PM »
Commerce nominee appears to endorse world government in video, Republicans say
The Daily Caller ^ | 6/7/11 | John Rossomando
Posted on June 7, 2011 10:02:42 PM EDT by Nachum

Does John Bryson, Barack Obama’s nominee for commerce secretary, want a world government? Critics say a newly uncovered video of the nominee suggests that he does. In the video – given to The Daily Caller by sources on Capitol Hill – Bryson refers to the 2009 United Nations climate negotiations in Copenhagen as “the closest thing we have to a world governance organization,” implying it provided the best model for imposing climate regulations on countries around the globe. Bryson also boasts about his role as an adviser to the U.N. secretary general on climate change in the video.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...




Fubo.     

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Step by Step: How Obama is collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #728 on: June 08, 2011, 03:57:36 PM »

Coal Regs Would Kill Jobs, Boost Energy Bills
By Paul Bedard

Posted: June 8, 2011




Two new EPA pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and electric rates will skyrocket 11 percent to over 23 percent, according to a new study based on government data.

Overall, the rules aimed at making the air cleaner could cost the coal-fired power plant industry $180 billion, warns a trade group.

[Check out a roundup of political cartoons on energy policy.]

“Many of these severe impacts would hit families living in states already facing serious economic challenges,” said Steve Miller, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. “Because of these impacts, EPA should make major changes to the proposed regulations before they are finalized,” he said.

The EPA, however, tells Whispers that the hit the industry will suffer is worth the health benefits. “EPA has taken a number of sensible steps to protect public health, while also working with industry and other stakeholders to ensure that these important Clean Air Act standards—such as the first ever national Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-fired power plants—are reasonable, common-sense, and achievable,” said spokesman Brendan Gilfillan. [Read Rep. Darrell Issa: Obama's Bad Policy, Harmful Regulations Add to Gas Prices.]

What’s more, officials said that just one of the rules to cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions will would yield up to $290 billion in annual health and welfare benefits in 2014. They say that amounts to preventing up to 36,000 premature deaths, 26,000 hospital and emergency room visits, and 240,000 cases of aggravated asthma. “This far outweighs the estimated annual costs,” says an official on background. [Check out political cartoons on the economy.]

Still, the EPA did note that the two new antipollution rules are “pending” and that the agency has “accepted and are considering feedback” from the industry.

The industry says the costs and potential to lose four jobs for every new clean energy job created isn’t worth the rules, especially in a job-starved economy. [See a slide show of the best cities to find a job.]

Referring to the analysis of the EPA regulations from National Economic Research Associates, Miller said they would be the most expensive rules ever imposed on power plants.

Coal-fired energy plants currently fuel about half of the nation’s energy supply.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/06/08/coal-regs-would-kill-jobs-boost-energy-bills


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: How Obama is INTENTIONALLY collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #729 on: June 08, 2011, 04:00:02 PM »
Another thing - whoever still supports obama  -   go kill yourselves and rot in hell with osama.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: How Obama is INTENTIONALLY collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #730 on: June 08, 2011, 07:15:25 PM »
Obama Administration Spends $17.4 Million to Explore Market for Carbon Credits
CNSNews ^ | June 8, 2011 | Matt Cover
Posted on June 8, 2011 8:52:50 PM EDT by jazusamo

(CNSNews.com) – The Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that it has awarded $17.4 million for pilot projects that will begin exploring how to establish a market for greenhouse gas (GHG) credits, a key component of a cap and trade system, to help reduce carbon and other emissions that apparently contribute to global warming.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the projects were the “foundational work” for establishing an American carbon market.

“This is really sort of foundational work that’s being done,” Vilsack told reporters on a conference call on Wednesday.

The $17.4 million in funding is part of the Conservation Innovation Grant (CIG) program, which is supposed to foster innovation in environmental conservation technology and business. In this case, the administration has received special funding to provide CIG grants for projects that demonstrate methods for establishing a GHG-offset markets in agriculture.

Greenhouse gas offsets, often called carbon credits, are a key component of a cap and trade system – the ‘trade’ part of the system in fact. Under cap and trade, businesses with GHG offsets can sell them to other businesses that need the offsets to stay under the emissions cap – the legal limit on carbon-dioxide and other GHG emissions.

(Under cap and trade, in general, companies that exceed their “cap” on greenhouse gas emissions can “trade” (buy) credits as compensation, the money for which is applied to more environmentally friendly industries; you pollute, you pay, and the money goes to green companies.)

GHG offsets can theoretically come from anything that reduces the amount of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gasses in the air, from a pledge to keep rural land undeveloped to planting trees to changing how farms handle animal waste or fertilizer.

“We want to help farmers and ranchers make important and innovative contributions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” Vilsack said. “These grants are designed to test and verify exciting new approaches to greenhouse gas reduction that other conservation-minded producers will want to put to work on their operations.”

In other words, the CIG grants fund projects that attempt to measure the quantity of GHGs that are saved – by not farming rural land, for example – and how those savings affect the value of the offsets – how many GHG credits a particular action is worth.

In a cap and trade system, farmers, ranchers, and other agriculture producers theoretically stand to make money by selling credits to other, GHG-intense businesses such as manufacturers and power companies.

Among the projects being funded is a $1 million program across eight states to show that beef and dairy farmers can be incentivized to change how they handle animal feeding and manure to produce less methane emissions.

Another $1.2 million grant given to an Indian tribe in Washington State will examine how to value and trade GHG offsets for planting trees, improved forest management, and not developing forested lands in tribal areas.

Each of the nine projects funded under the special CIG grants – totaling $7.4 million – aim to develop ways to integrate conservation and agriculture reforms into a GHG offset market, the type of market that would be critical to a functioning cap and trade system.

The USDA will also disburse an additional $10 million through its Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) grant program to aid these efforts.

Vilsack said the reason the Agriculture Department was getting involved in the establishment of carbon markets, which currently exist only in states like California and the Northeast, was to better integrate the federal government into regional cap and trade systems, so that the government has a better understanding of how GHG offset markets function.

“[W]e’re hopeful that this would create opportunities for better collaboration for ourselves at USDA and the various states that are themselves establishing markets and that this would assist us in building the capacity within USDA to understand how these markets work and how we might be able to do more of this in the future,” said Vilsack.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: How Obama is INTENTIONALLY collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #731 on: June 08, 2011, 07:38:38 PM »
Another slap in the face for Britain:...sides with Argentina and Venezuela
The Telegraph ^ | June 8th, 2011 | Nile Gardiner
Posted on June 8, 2011 10:15:44 PM EDT by CharlyFord

Another slap in the face for Britain: the Obama administration sides with Argentina and Venezuela in OAS declaration on the Falklands.

President Obama was effusive in his praise for the Special Relationship when he visited London recently, but his administration continues to slap Britain in the face over the highly sensitive Falklands issue. Washington signed on to a “draft declaration on the question of the Malvinas Islands” passed by unanimous consent by the General Assembly of the Organisation of American States (OAS) at its meeting in San Salvador yesterday, an issue which had been heavily pushed by Argentina. In doing so, the United States sided not only with Buenos Aires, but also with a number of anti-American regimes including Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela and Daniel Ortega’s Nicaragua.

The declaration calls for Argentina and Great Britain to enter into negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falklands, a position which London has long viewed as completely unacceptable. It also comes in the wake of increasing aggression by the Kirchner regime in the past 18 months, including threats to blockade British shipping in the South Atlantic.

(Excerpt) Read more at







Fuck you Obots. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: How Obama is INTENTIONALLY collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #732 on: June 08, 2011, 08:05:56 PM »
Skip to comments.

Obama’s EPA Regulations Will Cost Coal Industry $200 Billion & Electricity Rates to Skyrocket
GatewayPundit ^ | 6/8/11 | Jim Hoft
Posted on June 8, 2011 10:53:27 PM EDT by SanFranDan

In January 2008 Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle:

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers.”

He promised that his plan would cause electricity rates to skyrocket. He wasn’t kidding.

In January, 2011 the Obama Administration, for the first time ever, blocked an already approved bid to build one of the largest mountaintop removal coal mines in Appalachian history.

And, today it was reported that Obama’s energy plans will cause electricity rates to necessarily skyrocket Just as he promised.

Via US News and World Reports:

Two new EPA pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and electric rates will skyrocket 11 percent to over 23 percent, according to a new study based on government data.

Overall, the rules aimed at making the air cleaner could cost the coal-fired power plant industry $180 billion, warns a trade group.

“Many of these severe impacts would hit families living in states already facing serious economic challenges,” said Steve Miller, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. “Because of these impacts, EPA should make major changes to the proposed regulations before they are finalized,” he said.

The EPA, however, tells Whispers that the hit the industry will suffer is worth the health benefits.

quadzilla456

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 3497
  • Getbig!
Re: How Obama is INTENTIONALLY collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #733 on: June 08, 2011, 11:14:13 PM »
*sigh*

Obama is not doing this, his puppet master are. The president "fairy tale" really needs to end. We are all grownups now - come on, do you really think the mongrel is in charge?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: How Obama is INTENTIONALLY collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #734 on: June 09, 2011, 06:03:17 AM »
Giving Away the Farm

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/07/giving_away_the_farm?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full


The Obama administration is freely giving Russia sensitive information about missile defense that weakens U.S. national security.

BY R. JAMES WOOLSEY, REBECCAH HEINRICHS | JUNE 7, 2011


President Barack Obama's administration recently threatened to veto the defense budget, citing "serious concerns" over provisions that limit the U.S. missile defense know-how that the White House is permitted to share with Moscow. This is the sort of information that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, in his earlier days, would have assigned his spies to steal. Through its single-minded pursuit of "resetting" relations with Russia, the Obama administration may simply be willing to hand over this information and, in doing so, weaken U.S. national security.

COMMENTS (9) SHARE: Twitter  Reddit  Buzz   More...

Only two days after issuing the veto threat -- and as Obama tried to warm Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to U.S. missile defense plans at the G-8 Summit in Deauville, France -- the House of Representatives passed the defense bill. It included the provision that the president's team finds so offensive: Section 1228 requires that no funds can be used to provide the Russian Federation with sensitive U.S. missile defense technology.

This act of congressional prudence did not come out of nowhere. The Senate debate over New START raised questions about what the Obama administration may have promised Moscow regarding U.S. missile defense plans. The debate stemmed from the treaty's preamble, which linked offensive and defensive weapons, and a Russian unilateral statement that stated ratification of the treaty was conditional on whether the United States made improvements to its missile defense systems. In a treaty about reducing offensive weapons, it was clear the Russians required the Obama administration to include U.S. defenses in the bargain.

With that issue still unresolved, Congress discovered that the administration has been working on a missile defense agreement with the Russians and that Moscow had requested that the United States share with it loads of sensitive U.S. missile defense technology and operational authority as part of that deal. In the administration's eagerness to please the Kremlin, it may just oblige.

The House of Representatives has given a firm "no" to that prospect through its decision to ignore Obama's veto threat and approve the defense appropriations bill by a veto-proof vote of 322 to 96. The Senate may act similarly. On April 14, 39 Republican senators sent a letter to the president expressing their concern over the administration's consideration of granting to the Russians sensitive U.S. technology and "red button" authority to prevent the interception of incoming missiles headed for U.S. troops or allies. This would allow Russia to deny the United States the ability to intercept a missile Washington had determined to be a threat.

The letter, spearheaded by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), requested the administration provide the Senate with assurances that it will not share sensitive information with Moscow. The senators cited the problem that sharing this information with Russia poses in light of its history of espionage and technological cooperation with Iran and Syria.

They're right to be concerned. Tehran is thumbing its nose at Washington and doubling down on its missile program. The director of national intelligence, James Clapper, told a congressional panel in March that Iran "would likely choose missile delivery as its preferred method of delivering a nuclear weapon" and that the Islamic Republic "continues to expand the scale, reach and sophistication of its ballistic missile forces, many of which are inherently capable of carrying a nuclear payload."

Russian assistance has contributed to the progress made by Iran's nuclear and missile programs. Should the United States share critical information about its missile defenses with the Russians, a Russian entity -- official or otherwise -- could pass that information along to Tehran, enabling the Iranians to capitalize on the weaknesses in the U.S. system.

Nevertheless, the Obama administration continues to demonstrate its penchant for bargaining away missile defense, and the United States is not currently developing and deploying missile defense technology at the rate and quantity the threat demands.

The proliferation of missiles, especially short-range devices, continues to accelerate. As a result, the United States has a greater need than ever for short-range defensive systems like the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and the Patriot air and missile defense system. The United States, its forces abroad, and its allies are also vulnerable to short-range missiles fired from ships at sea and long-range missiles fired in large quantities. The only system the United States currently has to defend against intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) is the ground-based midcourse defense (GMD) system, which is limited in its ability. The sea-based Aegis system is supposed to complement the GMD system in defending the homeland against long-range missiles by 2020, but the intelligence community continues to estimate that Iran will have an ICBM by 2015.

Leaders in the House, and particularly the Armed Services Committee, deserve commendation for trying to address these weaknesses. The House defense bill added funds for short-range defenses, the GMD system, and Aegis; and perhaps most strikingly, it mandated the administration to conduct a study on the technical and operational feasibility of space-based interceptors -- the ideal type of system to intercept missiles at the optimal point, during their boost phase.

But as the administration's veto threat demonstrates, the future of U.S. missile defense requires more than Congress alone can provide. Here's hoping that the White House comes to its senses and stops trying to use a degradation in U.S. national security to purchase a Russian "reset."

Save big when you subscribe to FP. Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

 R. James Woolsey is chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Rebeccah Heinrichs is an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former manager of the Congressional Missile Defense Caucus.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: How Obama is INTENTIONALLY collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #735 on: June 09, 2011, 06:20:45 AM »
Obama's Undeclared War on America
American Thinker ^ | 6-9-11 | Geoffrey P. Hunt


________________________ ________________________ ___________--



Republican US House Speaker John Boehner, and US Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking minority member Richard Lugar, are both obsessed with bringing President Obama to account under the War Powers Act for his intervention in Libya.

Libya is typical of Obama's foreign policy: timid, tardy, aloof, and counterproductive. Accordingly, the outcome from Obama's Libyan humanitarian adventure has been predictable, needlessly adding over $1 billion to the US federal deficit while emboldening a stalemate benefitting Gaddafi, who continues to inflict civilian casualties with impunity.

Whatever Obama's disposition of the War Powers Act concerning Libya, it is still trivial stuff compared with Obama's undeclared War on America. Boehner and Lugar need to stand down from the snipe hunt over Libya and pay attention to Obama's destruction here at home.

Obama's undeclared War on America has been as intense, unrelenting, costly, and devastating as any undeclared war since Korea. Obama's carpet-bombing through taxes, regulations, energy policies, and pledging to do more of the same has paralyzed and bankrupted the nation, plunging it into a despondency not seen since eight decades ago.

Apart from James Buchanan, no president has been so ill-prepared and willfully ignorant as Obama when presented with an unprecedented national crisis. We are now mired in the 21st century Great Gloom, our nation's 2nd Great Depression, having identical features with the first one: millions of Americans are out of work with few prospects for any; millions more Americans have lost their homes with even more facing foreclosure and owing more on their mortgages than the homes are worth; the private sector is calcified; high taxes and regulations frustrate capital formation and job creation.

Obama's inability or unwillingness to read history, compounded by his stubborn big government ideology, has led him to adopt or advocate for the single most devastating tactic that doomed Herbert Hoover when the Great Depression began and plagued FDR as the wretchedness of the 1930s persisted for nearly another decade: higher taxes.

The Great Depression's illiquidity closed thousands of banks, wiped out savings, and obliterated home and farm ownership. High tariffs choked international trade, idling more businesses and spoiling more stockpiles of foodstuffs.

Today's analog -- regulatory fever -- has strangled job creation, demolished the real estate markets, and crushed any hope to restore self-confidence by heaping nearly $2 trillion of unrelieved costs on American business.

Except for taxes and tariffs -- as David M. Kennedy argues in his Freedom From Fear-The American People in Depression and War 1929-1945, at least President Herbert Hoover didn't deliberately make the Depression worse. Hoover was physically exhausted and mentally drained in tirelessly applying any remedy that would ease the suffering and stop the economic bleeding.

Says Kennedy ( p. 94) "He kept up a punishing regimen of rising at six and working without interruption until nearly midnight. His clothes were disheveled, his hair rumpled, his eyes bloodshot, complexion ashen.

"By the fall of 1932 he had lost all stomach for political campaigning...seemed to campaign more for vindication of the historical record than for the affection in the hearts of voters.

"Just four years earlier he had won one of the most lopsided victories in the history of presidential elections...The Great Engineer, so recently the most revered American, was the most loathed and scorned figure in the country."

Contrast that scene with Obama on another golf outing, wolfing down chilidogs and cheeseburgers, and launching his 2012 re-election campaign eighteen months in advance.

Hoover gets a bum rap for allowing a recession to turn into the Great Depression. He tried everything at his disposal that contemporaneous economists and banker/financiers thought would work. But as Kennedy further observes, through the lens of economist Herbert Stein, the federal government at the time was too small to be leveraged; state and local governments had collective budgets five times larger than the federal government and some states had statutory restrictions on incurring more indebtedness. According to Kennedy, even Pennsylvania by its own constitution could not borrow more than $1 million.

The federal budget in 1929 was only 3% of GDP. Obama's 2012 budget would approach 25% of GDP. Obama sees no limit to bloated bureaucracies, the size of government tenfold larger and growing even more immense than Hoover could ever have imagined, and the debt to go with it flirting with sovereign default.

In the beginning Hoover, not gregarious by nature, engaged every politician and business leader who he thought could be enlisted for advice or action. Only after exhausting all possibilities, while the nation's fortunes plummeted further, did Hoover become isolated and withdrawn. Kennedy relates a dark joke circulating at the lowest point of Hoover's presidency: "the president asked for a nickel to make a telephone call to a friend, an aide flipped him a dime and said 'call them both'."

Hoover was a man of broad and deep intellect, a voracious student of economics and finance. Kennedy (p 94) recounts a quote from Theodore Joslin, a secretary to Hoover:

His was a mathematical brain...Let banking officials for example come into his office and he would rattle off the number of banks in the country, list their liabilities and assets, describe the trend of fiscal affairs, and go into the liquidity or lack of it, of individual institutions, all from memory.

What a contrast to Obama's teleprompter presidency, uttering shopworn political clichés with it, occasionally unable to string together anything coherent without it.

Prior to becoming president, Hoover was regarded as the most experienced organization titan, ironically owing to his single-handed leadership in the acclaimed Belgian food relief program upon the outset of WWI. As Kennedy notes, at the end of the War, Hoover was President Wilson's personal advisor, "as much as any one man could he got the credit for reorganizing the war-shattered European economy."

Yes, Hoover is tagged with failure. Yet he was serious, purposeful, and above all, even willing to abandon his own ideology in search for a cure. Hoover's acquiescence to the formation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation capped a sequence of measures harnessing the potential power of government intervention when it was clear private means were insufficient. In fact, as Kennedy continues, noted Columbia University economist Rexford Tugwell, FDR's behind-the-scenes architect for much of the New Deal, "later conceded that practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started[.]"

Obama shares but two likenesses with Hoover. The first one in public utterances prone to underestimating the severity of the crisis.

Remarked Hoover in his famous understatement in May 1930, "I am convinced we have passed the worst and with continued effort we shall rapidly recover...the depression is over[.]" Last week we heard from Obama that "the economy is taking a while to mend...and faces bumps on the road to recovery."

Hoover's comments were accidents of timing, Obama's deliberate obfuscations.

And second, not unlike Hoover's (and later FDR's) addiction to tax hikes, Obama has overseen piles of costs heaped on everyday Americans from deliberately high energy prices to environmental regulatory roadblocks on energy production to $1 trillion in taxes and mandates under ObamaCare.

Who can objectively deny Obama has made the extant condition worse? Whether he has purposefully made things worse is up for some debate; after all he has no expertise in anything from which to conjure a sinister plan. Yet economic destruction derived from ignorance, folly, and neglect is still destruction. At least Hoover, by contrast, was a self-made economist who understood capital formation and liquidity, monetary and fiscal theory, and international trade, debt, and currency flows.

Arguably, international isolationism contributed to and prolonged the Great Depression. Obama's own personal isolationism, evidenced by his contempt for regular Americans and standoffish relations with foreign leaders, handmaiden to the scorn and hostility he shows towards Republicans, is a continual roadblock in finding solutions.

Even Obama's own erstwhile cheerleader for doomed Obamanomics, Austan Goolsbee, chief economic advisor to the president, has found either the task overwhelming or the companionship insufferable -- take your pick -- after only 10 months on the job.

Temperamentally Obama is a drone unleashing as much destruction on the American psyche as his drones have done to destroy military targets in Afghanistan. Devoid of honest analytics, Obama continues to issue phony reports from the domestic battlefront. Even the Washington Post, fiercely loyal to Obama's personality and politics, has had enough of his lies about the success from the auto industry bailouts.

If Obama's game is to perfect an undeclared War on America, he is succeeding. It remains to be seen whether the Republicans can summon enough nerve to reprise Gen McAuliffe's famous retort to the German demand for surrender at Bastogne in December of 1944, "Nuts."

Only Congress can now do what the voters sent them to do -- disarm and defund Obama's undeclared War on America. And for 2012, who shall be the Republicans' Gen Patton, coming to America's rescue?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: How Obama is INTENTIONALLY collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #736 on: June 09, 2011, 06:56:21 AM »
Obama to create White House Rural Council
Associated Press ^ | June 8, 2011 | DARLENE SUPERVILLE


________________________ _________________-



WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama plans to create a special advisory council to recommend ways to boost the economic outlook and quality of life for the estimated 60 million people who live in rural areas of the U.S., a White House official said.

Obama was expected to sign an executive order Thursday establishing the White House Rural Council and naming Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, of Iowa, to be its chairman.


(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...





________________________ _________


Sounds like Stalins' Ukraine policy. 


FUCK YOU OBAMA!     

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: How Obama is INTENTIONALLY collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #737 on: June 09, 2011, 02:00:40 PM »
The EPA’s New Move - Is the NAT GAS Act an EPA Trojan horse?
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE ^ | June 9, 2011 | Phil Kerpen



The EPA's New Move
Is the NAT GAS Act an EPA Trojan horse?



The debate over the New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2011, or NAT GAS Act, has focused mostly on the question of whether the federal government should use hefty subsidies — $64,000 per truck — to interfere with the free-market allocation of resources. On that point, a surprisingly large number of Republicans are siding with their central-planning-advocate colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

But why are so many Democrats enamored with big corporate-welfare giveaways to the natural-gas industry in the first place? The answer might be a little-noticed provision called “Section 403” that could clear the legal path for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to pursue the Obama administration’s entire energy agenda via back-door regulations.

Club for Growth president Chris Chocola first rang the alarm bell about Section 403 in a post on RedState, writing that it “lends credibility to the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.” The implications are even more profound than that.

Up to now, Congress had never approved of the EPA’s attempts to shoehorn greenhouse-gas regulation into the 1970 Clean Air Act. In fact, the House voted overwhelmingly to prohibit the EPA from doing so, and while the Senate failed to achieve a 60-vote consensus on any particular solution, 50 senators voted for outright pre-emption and another 14 voted for deeply flawed, political-cover alternatives that nonetheless objected to the EPA regulating greenhouse gases without congressional approval.

Section 403 of the NAT GAS Act accepts as a given that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, saying: “It is the sense of the Congress that the Environmental Protection Agency[’s] new fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission regulations for medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles should provide incentives to encourage and reward manufacturers who produce natural gas powered vehicles.”

The regulations it is referring to were negotiated in an infamous backroom deal in which then–climate czar Carol Browner threatened to allow states to pass their own regulations if the auto industry didn’t acquiesce to expensive new federal regulations. Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, another party to the secret negotiations, confirmed to the New York Times that Browner took the lead. “We put nothing in writing, ever.” Nichols said.

Now the EPA is poised to take the next step and impose an absurd 62-miles-per-gallon fuel-economy standard by 2025 that will take safe family vehicles off the road and force us all to buy the tiny, underpowered, politically correct cars favored by bureaucrats. The EPA is also moving beyond regulating motor vehicles to twisting the Clean Air Act as a way to pursue the entire failed cap-and-trade energy-tax agenda, with a particular emphasis on regulating the coal industry into oblivion and sending the price of gasoline skyrocketing.

While Congress of course should step in and stop the EPA, so far it has failed to do so. That makes the dubious legal status of the EPA regulations critical. Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli and Texas attorney general Greg Abbott have taken the lead with aggressive legal challenges. Texas has even refused to comply with EPA dictates it considers unlawful. There are also several private legal challenges to the EPA.

Unfortunately, Section 403 could knock the legs out from under these lawsuits by creating a clear legislative history that takes as a given the existence of EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases. If the bill passes, EPA will argue it is conclusive proof that their authority exists, and will likely find a sympathetic ear from a judiciary that has consistently favored expansive interpretations of the Clean Air Act.

Republican proponents of the bill make a variety of arguments, contending essentially that advancing natural-gas vehicles is such a national imperative that free-market principles should be set aside and government should step in. But the biggest impact of the bill may be something entirely different and wholly unintended: a green light for the EPA’s whole agenda of skyrocketing energy prices via greenhouse-gas regulation. That’s more than enough reason to kill this bill.

— Phil Kerpen is vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity and the author of the forthcoming book Democracy Denied (BenBella Books, October 2011) on Obama’s regulatory agenda).


OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: How Obama is INTENTIONALLY collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #738 on: June 09, 2011, 02:02:37 PM »
But did he promise?

 ::)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: How Obama is INTENTIONALLY collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #739 on: June 09, 2011, 02:30:44 PM »
But did he promise?

 ::)

YES! 

"UNDER MY PLAN ELECTRIC RATES WILL SKYROCKET" 


Guess what happens then Ozmo? 



OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: How Obama is INTENTIONALLY collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #740 on: June 09, 2011, 03:17:36 PM »
YES! 

"UNDER MY PLAN ELECTRIC RATES WILL SKYROCKET" 


Guess what happens then Ozmo? 




 ::)

NO, show where he promised he would bankrupt the coal industry. 

I am starting to think you aren't even a NBC. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: How Obama is INTENTIONALLY collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #741 on: June 09, 2011, 03:35:19 PM »
James already did.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: How Obama is INTENTIONALLY collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #742 on: June 09, 2011, 04:47:01 PM »
No, he regurgitated the same stuff you did, that didn't show where Obama promised to bankrupt the coal industry.

same old bull shit spin (lie) from you.   ::)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: How Obama is INTENTIONALLY collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #743 on: June 09, 2011, 05:11:42 PM »
Right - his own words are lies now. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: How Obama is INTENTIONALLY collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #744 on: June 09, 2011, 05:43:00 PM »
Capito said she will write a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson asking whether the agency took into account the economic impact of its regulations.

"Let me be clear, it’s decisions like the one made by AEP today that demonstrate the urgent need to rein in government agencies like the EPA, preventing them from overstepping their bounds and imposing regulations that not only cost us good American jobs, but hurt our economy," said Manchin, an outspoken critic of the EPA.

But EPA defended its regulations Thursday, noting that the agency has worked closely with industry to ensure that its regulations are “reasonable, common-sense and achievable.”

The agency also stressed that the regulations are essential for protecting public health.

“These reasonable steps taken under the Clean Air Act will reduce harmful air pollution, including mercury, arsenic and other toxic pollution, and as a result protect our families, particularly children,” EPA said in a statement.

In a statement outlining its plan to comply with EPA's regulations, AEP said it would need to retire 6,000 megawatts of coal-fired power generation in the coming years.

The company, one of the country’s largest electric utilities, estimated that it will cost between $6 billion and $8 billion in capital investments over the next decade to comply with the regulations in their current form.

The costs of complying with the regulations will result in an increase in electricity prices of 10 to 35 percent and cost 600 jobs, AEP said.

In total, AEP estimated it will have to close five coal-fired power plants by the end of 2014. Six additional plants would see major changes, including retiring some generating units, retrofitting equipment and switching to natural gas.

“We support regulations that achieve long-term environmental benefits while protecting customers, the economy and the reliability of the electric grid, but the cumulative impacts of the EPA’s current regulatory path have been vastly underestimated, particularly in Midwest states dependent on coal to fuel their economies,” AEP CEO Michael Morris said in a statement.

The company said its compliance plan could “change significantly” if EPA’s regulations are altered.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: How Obama is INTENTIONALLY collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #745 on: June 09, 2011, 05:50:01 PM »
Right - his own words are lies now. 

 ::)

More of your stupid attempts at spinning.

show me  where he says: I promise to bankrupt the coal industry

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: How Obama is INTENTIONALLY collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #746 on: June 09, 2011, 05:55:41 PM »
::)

More of your stupid attempts at spinning.

show me  where he says: I promise to bankrupt the coal industry

James quoted it. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: How Obama is INTENTIONALLY collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #747 on: June 09, 2011, 05:56:44 PM »
AEP says it will close five coal plants to comply with EPA regs
By Andrew Restuccia    - 06/09/11 03:55 PM ET
Utility giant American Electric Power said Thursday that it will shut down five coal-fired power plants and spend billions of dollars to comply with a series of pending Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

The company’s dramatic plan to comply with the regulations could give Republicans and moderate Democrats ammunition in their ongoing fight against EPA's efforts to impose new regulations aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants including mercury and arsenic.

Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) immediately pounced on AEP's announcement.

“This is a perfect example of the EPA implementing rules and regulations without considering the devastating impact they may have on local economies and jobs,” Capito said. 

Capito said she will write a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson asking whether the agency took into account the economic impact of its regulations.

"Let me be clear, it’s decisions like the one made by AEP today that demonstrate the urgent need to rein in government agencies like the EPA, preventing them from overstepping their bounds and imposing regulations that not only cost us good American jobs, but hurt our economy," said Manchin, an outspoken critic of the EPA.

But EPA defended its regulations Thursday, noting that the agency has worked closely with industry to ensure that its regulations are “reasonable, common-sense and achievable.”

The agency also stressed that the regulations are essential for protecting public health.

“These reasonable steps taken under the Clean Air Act will reduce harmful air pollution, including mercury, arsenic and other toxic pollution, and as a result protect our families, particularly children,” EPA said in a statement.

In a statement outlining its plan to comply with EPA's regulations, AEP said it would need to retire 6,000 megawatts of coal-fired power generation in the coming years.

The company, one of the country’s largest electric utilities, estimated that it will cost between $6 billion and $8 billion in capital investments over the next decade to comply with the regulations in their current form.

The costs of complying with the regulations will result in an increase in electricity prices of 10 to 35 percent and cost 600 jobs, AEP said.

In total, AEP estimated it will have to close five coal-fired power plants by the end of 2014. Six additional plants would see major changes, including retiring some generating units, retrofitting equipment and switching to natural gas.

“We support regulations that achieve long-term environmental benefits while protecting customers, the economy and the reliability of the electric grid, but the cumulative impacts of the EPA’s current regulatory path have been vastly underestimated, particularly in Midwest states dependent on coal to fuel their economies,” AEP CEO Michael Morris said in a statement.

The company said its compliance plan could “change significantly” if EPA’s regulations are altered.

Comments (15)

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39467
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: How Obama is INTENTIONALLY collapsing America and destroying the nation
« Reply #749 on: June 09, 2011, 07:07:53 PM »
EDITORIAL: GM’s gas-tax fraud--Ripping off motorists is key to the leftist agenda
The Washington Times ^ | June 9, 2011 | Editorial
Posted on June 9, 2011 9:14:23 PM EDT by jazusamo

Government Motors has become yet another mouthpiece for the Obama administration. General Motors Co. CEO Dan Akerson told the Detroit News Saturday that he wants a $1 per gallon hike in the gas tax. Consumers already facing nearly $4 a gallon prices at the pump aren’t going to be pleased to see that figure jump overnight to $5, but the left and its crony capitalist allies don’t care what the public thinks.

Mr. Akerson wants to use the power of government to make buying a Chevy Volt, GM’s entry into the electric car market, more economically attractive. Such marketplace intervention is apparently needed because a mere 481 Volts were purchased last month, despite government subsidies and incentives worth thousands of dollars. By comparison, Ford sold 42,399 unsubsidized F-series pickup trucks over the same period. That’s almost one big gas-guzzler every minute.

The bureaucratic class at the state and federal level wants you to think the opposite is the case. They perpetuate the myth that gas-tax revenues are dangerously low because everyone is driving a Prius or some kind of electric car. “In the past, the Highway Trust Fund has been largely user-supported through fuel-tax revenue,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s blog explained last year.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...