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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (99902)	2/14/2011 1:28:30 PM
From: grusum	8 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224748

Indeed, the driver of the deficit is tax cuts. THE DRIVER OF THE DEFICIT IS SPENDING YOU MORON.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (99902)	2/14/2011 1:47:59 PM
From: Sedohr Nod	6 Recommendations Respond to of 224748

No individual, corporation, governmental entity, movie star or space alien can continue to spend $3.60 to $3.80 for every $2.40 to $2.60 they take in for any length of time.....congress is and has been out of control for years and your guy is the captain of multiple titanics all at once....and he couldn't identify a iceberg at the north pole. Some presidents have been elected at just the right time for the need at hand.....Any person elected in 08 would have had a rough go at it, but I can't imagine a less equipped man for the conditions than Obama.....This crap has got to stop.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (99902)	2/14/2011 2:10:51 PM
From: lorne	Respond to of 224748

Shocking! Unemployment shoots to 17.3% February 13, 2011 © 2011 WorldNetDaily wnd.com The Bureau of Labor Statistics appears to be intentionally understating the current unemployment rate, most likely with an aim to bolstering the Obama administration's claim that the unemployment rate is improving as jobs are created in a recovering economy, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports. In a news release on Feb. 4, the unemployment rate was reported to have fallen 0.4 percent to 9.0 percent in January 2011, even though only 36,000 non-farm jobs were created. The report further claimed the number of persons unemployed in January 2011 decreased by about 600,000, to 13.9 million people, while the labor force was unchanged. "Truthfully, it's all in the classifications," Corsi explained. "Tracking down the different definitions of unemployment used by the BLS is an exercise in how the Obama administration lies with statistics." The monthly unemployment rate report turned out by the BLS defines unemployment as those currently without a job who have actively looked for work in the prior four weeks and are currently available for work. This definition conveniently excludes from the definition of unemployed those who have grown so discouraged that they are no longer looking for work, as well as those who are considered under-employed because they have been forced to accept part-time or lower paying full-time employment because no other jobs are available. Looking at the unadjusted data, the unemployment rate jumps to 17.3 percent for January 2011, not the 9.0 percent originally reported in the monthly BLS unemployment rate release. Corsi added, "Clearly the Obama administration will do anything possible – including manipulating data – to avoid having to admit to the American public that after having spent billions in stimulus funds and trillions in deficits, unemployment in the United States for January 2011 was 17.3 percent." For information on how the unemployment rate is calculated, read Jerome Corsi's Red Alert, the premium, online intelligence news source by the WND staff writer, columnist and author of the New York Times No. 1 best-seller, "The Obama Nation." Red Alert's author, who received a doctorate from Harvard in political science in 1972, is the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-sellers "The Obama Nation" and (with co-author John E. O'Neill) "Unfit for Command." He is also the author of several other books, including "America for Sale," "The Late Great U.S.A." and "Why Israel Can't Wait." In addition to serving as a senior staff reporter for WorldNetDaily, Corsi is a senior managing director in the financial-services group at Gilford Securities.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (99902)	2/14/2011 4:11:01 PM
From: tonto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224748

Obama's budget: A play for the center? By Alan Silverleib, CNN February 14, 2011 3:48 p.m. EST Washington (CNN) -- The plan wasn't even officially out before the criticism started rolling in. President Barack Obama's proposed $3.7 trillion budget was slammed by the left and the right Monday. Outraged liberals called it a callous assault on the poor; dismissive conservatives labeled it a debt-riddled assault on future generations. Which begs the question: Is Obama's budget blueprint exactly what the president needs to capture the broad political center in the runup to 2012? The president's fiscal year 2012 budget would cut deficits by $1.1 trillion over the next decade, according to White House estimates. Two-thirds of the deficit cuts would come from spending reductions; a third would come from tax hikes. The plan includes a five-year freeze on nonsecurity discretionary spending. Some programs, such as low-income heating assistance, would face the budget knife. New limits would be placed on deductions for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions. But the most expensive and politically popular programs -- including Medicare and Social Security -- would remain largely untouched, against the recommendations of Obama's own deficit reduction commission. While it trims annual deficits, the president's budget would still add $7.2 trillion to the nation's publicly held debt by 2021. "Every cut to necessary programs ... needs to be judged in the context of the unnecessary tax cuts for Wall Street millionaires that passed at the end of last year," the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) said in a statement, referring to Obama's deal extending the Bush-era tax cuts for two more years. "We must make bigger investments in America's future starting now -- and ask the Wall Street millionaires who got us into this mess to do more to help pay for it." The PCCC counts hundreds of 2008 Obama campaign staffers among its members. Obama "says that he wants to work with us to begin reining in spending, but ... (his budget goes) in exactly the opposite direction," said New Jersey Representative Scott Garrett, a top House Budget Committee Republican. "Today is Valentine's Day, but I don't know if this is the card that America was hoping to get from the administration. It's a card that says you owe more to the federal government." The president's proposed cuts are not nearly deep enough, Senator Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, told CNN's "American Morning." His planned "reduction is insignificant and does not get us off on the right course. We are facing a fiscal crisis." Obama responded by characterizing the plan as a successful balance of sorely needed new investments and long-term spending reductions. "While it's absolutely essential to live within our means ... we can't sacrifice our future in the process," he told reporters while touting some targeted new education spending. "We have a responsibility to invest in those areas that will have the biggest impact in our future" while "demanding accountability." The president called his plan a "down payment" on greater long-term fiscal responsibility. Top congressional Democrats rallied to Obama's side. Representative Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, called the president's plan a "tough love budget" that "strikes the right balance." Van Hollen said it stands in "stark contrast" to the "blind budget slashing" of House Republicans, who have proposed cutting more than $60 billion from spending for the remainder of the current fiscal year. Are there echoes in Obama's maneuvering of former President Bill Clinton's shift to the political center after Republicans captured Congress in 1994? Clinton famously declared an end to "the era of big government" while launching a high-profile defense of popular spending on Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment, among other things. Clitnon's so-called "triangulation" -- taking credit for the most popular aspects of each party's agenda -- helped to position him between Democratic liberals and Republican conservatives heading into the 1996 campaign. Safely ensconced in the political center and bolstered by a strengthening economy, he rolled to an easy re-election. One difference between Clinton in 1995 and Obama in 2011 is that "Clinton sacrificed his agenda-setting powers to engage in triangulation -- looking responsive more than proactive," argued Wendy Schiller, a Brown University political science professor. Obama "needed to present a tough budget, and depending on how it's managed, the larger the Democratic outcry over it, the more credible he will seem to the fiscally concerned independent voters that are key to his re-election in 2012," she said. The risk for Obama, Schiller said, is angering his party's base voters "so much that they stay home in 2012." Schiller also warned of a backlash against Republicans calling for deeper cuts. There may be a large number of voters "who did not realize how much they needed federal spending until it was taken away from their communities," she said. "Not only will that help Obama in 2012, it may do damage to the longer-term Republican goal of shrinking the size and scope of the federal government." As for the unwillingness of either party to address Social Security and Medicare, Schiller said the day could come "when they will squeeze out almost all other domestic federal spending. Obama and the Republicans just hope to delay that day of reckoning as long as possible." "The glaring omission of any significant entitlement reforms ... does not help to advance the conversation," added Maya MacGuineas, head of the Committee for a Responsible Budget. That may be fine with most voters. According to a January 21-23 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, more than seven in 10 Americans claim they back an agenda to reduce the size of government. A majority believe it's very important for the president and Congress to deal with the deficit. But roughly 80 percent of Americans would rather prevent significant cuts to Medicare and Social Security than reduce the deficit. Overwhelming majorities also shy away from cuts in education, veterans' benefits, infrastructure spending or aid to the unemployed. Cut, but not too much. And steer clear of the most popular programs. On paper, at least, the broader electorate appears to be embracing positions fairly closely in line with an administration now gearing up for a tough re-election fight

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (99902)	2/14/2011 4:57:36 PM
From: MJ	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224748

What is Huffington Post smoking? "And the relative deficit is well below the levels of the 1940s, a time of economic prosperity." The 1940's were a time of economic prosperity? For whom???

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (99902)	2/15/2011 9:29:11 AM
From: JakeStraw	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224748

Obama's Gutless Budget Proposal investors.com The White House's new budget is far worse than merely bad. By not attacking the underlying cause of our debt explosion and by raising taxes, it will lead inevitably to a weaker economy and perhaps even default. Numerous studies show that if you cut runaway spending in a serious way, the deficit will disappear. Oblivious to this fact, President Obama in his new budget chooses to make puny cuts and instead to focus on tax hikes — the last thing our stumbling economy needs right now. All told, the new taxes total $1.5 trillion over 10 years — ranging from new levies on small-business owners and corporations to taxes on energy and banks. Passed as is, the Obama budget would make economic stagnation and 9% unemployment the status quo.