Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (71504)	4/29/2009 12:01:05 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

When the Obama Backlash Comes By Jeff Lukens AMERICAN THINKER Public opinion can be very fickle. Barack Obama has ridden a positive wave of opinion all the way to the White House. The public has welcomed him into office in that same spirit of hope in which he ran. Since the inauguration, however, the President is showing he has different plans than the ones he spoke about during the campaign. It should come as no surprise when the public turns on him just as easily as he has turned on them. The contradictions between Obama's words and actions are many. He opposes big government, and then he vastly expands it. He says he favors bipartisanship, but doesn't practice it. He says he is against earmarks, and then signs the largest pork package in history. And that is just to name a few. Such inconsistencies are contributing to a lack of confidence in Obama and his economic policies. The budget deficits he proposes are staggering. The trillions of dollars he wants to spend are incomprehensible. There is no evidence that stimulative government spending even works. Obama is apparently racing to remake America in a socialist mold before public sentiment turns against him. One wonders whether his political capital will run out before financial capital of the country runs out. There is simply no way the government can pay for this level of spending unless it prints money it doesn't have and debases the dollar. His numbers do not add up. Larger deficits are not the solution to a debt crisis. Not that it is Obama's fault, but throw in Social Security and Medicare benefits to be paid in the future, and we effectively have placed the U.S. government in bankruptcy. Obama addresses this looming crisis only in generalities, but his spending plans bring national bankruptcy closer to reality Obama's overriding goal seems to [be] government control of more of the society and economy. He claims that by redoing health, education and energy policies he can cure the economy. It is a ruse by which government can control ever more of our daily life. If he truly wanted the economy to improve, Obama would simply make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Having some certainty about low tax rates would do much to help the economy. But that does not fit with his plans to enact the most radical social change we have ever seen. Over the past decade, the United States has become ever more dependent on foreign investment in its Treasury Bills, primarily by China and Japan. The willingness of these investors to continue to purchasing trillions in U.S. debt has become ever more questionable as they have seen the U.S. economy deteriorate. If they ever walk away, our economy could collapse. So, where does this all leave Barack Obama? In the past, excessive taxation and spending policies have caused the economy to contract. High unemployment then followed, and increased government spending caused the budget deficit to soar. The central bank then tried to solve the problem by printing more money leading to higher inflation, punishing family budgets and the dollar. Usually by this point an alarmed public turns to conservatives to clean up the mess. Think Margaret Thatcher in 1979, and Ronald Reagan in 1980. Could this pattern portend the end for Barack Obama? Not necessarily. Before conservatives can recover, Obama is hoping to shift the fundamental structure of our economy away from individual self-reliance toward a type of Euro-socialism. We will see which way it plays out. It's a shame Obama uses his oratory gifts to punish rather than inspire personal achievement. He will likely continue on his merry path until his polls collapse and the public rejects him. The tipping point may be an international incident such as an Arab-Israeli war, Russian aggression, or some other crisis. With the weak domestic economy, and an Obama kumbaya response in a time of emergency, the whole illusion of "change you can believe in" could be laid bare. By the time the bloom comes off this fanciful presidency, will conservatives have found their voice? Will Obama then reinvent himself with some Bill Clinton-style triangulation plan? Probably not. More likely, he has already shown us his best act and will slowly morph into a finger-pointing demagogue as his polls fade. If anyone else were president and deceptively trying to enact his programs, a full-scale revolt would already be underway. But for now, Obama is still a curiosity to whom many are willing to give a chance. Political correctness still holds sway, and Tea Parties are about as rebellious as it gets. In due time, the public will judge this man and his policies more clearly, and calls to stop him will grow louder. Let's hope it's not too late before that happens. americanthinker.com

To: Sully- who wrote (71504)	4/29/2009 12:31:06 PM
From: Peter Dierks	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

TOOMEY: Arlen Specter's betrayal Will embolden Democratic drive toward the welfare state By Pat Toomey \| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 Sen. Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party has implications on a personal and national scale. For Pennsylvanians, who must decide who will represent us in the U.S. Senate next year, the stakes are personal. A central question will be whether Mr. Specter can be trusted on anything. In recent weeks, Mr. Specter has made numerous statements about how important it is to deny Democrats the 60th seat in the U.S. Senate and how he intended to remain a Republican to prevent one-party dominance in Washington. What Pennsylvanians have to ask themselves now is whether Mr. Specter is, in fact, devoted to any principle other than his own re-election. On that question, there is much evidence. Mr. Specter began his political career as a Democrat, switched to the Republican side out of political convenience and has switched back for the same reason. On issue after issue, he has changed his position over the years to benefit his political calculations. The most recent example is card check, which denies workers a secret ballot in labor-union elections. First Mr. Specter supported it, then he opposed it when faced with Republican primary opposition, and now, who knows? That's something Pennsylvania Democrats will have to contend with. Do they really want to nominate someone who will switch his principles on a dime? If Mr. Specter's political expediency were only a personal matter, it would hardly be worth noting. However, the national implications are more serious. By switching parties, Mr. Specter guarantees the very thing he has vocally warned against: a one-party Democratic monopoly of the federal government. Just a few months ago, Mr. Specter said avoiding one-party dominance was vital for our country. He was right then. Unfortunately, his desire for political self-preservation trumped his previously stated view of the vital interests of our country. But Pennsylvania voters will have the ability to correct this situation in next year's election. I believe the Democratic Congress' reaction to the current recession has brought our country to a crossroads. On one path, we have the most massive growth in federal spending in our nation's history. The biggest debt in history. Taxpayer-funded bailouts of failed Wall Street firms and Detroit automakers, the likes of which we have never before seen. And the promise of massive tax increases next year. Mr. Specter, of course, voted in favor of all of this when he was still a Republican, so in that sense, not much will change. But he will embolden House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to take our country even further down the road to a European-style welfare state. The other path is more familiar to Americans. It is the path of limited government, free enterprise and personal responsibility, which have been the hallmarks of America's success for generations. That is the path that will lead us to economic recovery. It is the path I will advocate in my campaign for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania. I do not believe that the rejection of the Republican Party in the 2006 and 2008 elections was a rejection of those principles. Rather, too many Republicans in Washington became enamored with, and indeed corrupted by, big government. After all, the "Bridge to Nowhere" was a Republican-sponsored earmark. Voters threw the Republicans out of Congress because they didn't like the Republicans' performance. And there was much to dislike. Unfortunately, the pendulum has swung much too far in the other direction, with record-shattering wasteful spending increases. Now, the Specter-empowered Democratic supermajority will go even further. In 2010, voters will say "Enough is enough." In the parlance of economics, there will be a "market correction." Americans who voted for the nice-sounding but content-free notion of "change" in 2008 will vote again to say "not so fast; even more power in the hands of Washington politicians is not the change we had in mind." And when Pennsylvanians look at Arlen Specter's role in this political power grab, they will reject him, too. Pat Toomey is a former Republican member of the House of Representatives and is a candidate for his party's nomination to the U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania. washingtontimes.com