Self sufficient or government dependent?

Investor's Business Daily has the question and a breakdown.  Read the original here.


Is President Obama Creating A Nation Of Dependents?

By JOHN MERLINE, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 01/26/2012 08:05 AM ET

 View Enlarged Image

If the Republican primaries are any indication, one big debate in the upcoming election will be whether President Obama is pushing the country toward a European-style welfare culture.

Mitt Romney, for example, argues that "over the past three years, Barack Obama has been replacing our merit-based society with an entitlement society."

Newt Gingrich has taken to calling Obama "the best food-stamp president in American history."

Obama, in contrast, says the government must play an increasing role — what he likes to call "shared responsibility" — to ensure a society that is fairer.

So is Obama turning the country into a welfare society and away from one focused on opportunity?

While it's true that the country has been headed in this direction for many years — with the explosion in entitlements since the 1960s and the aging of the population — Obama has, in fact, greatly accelerated the trend. Examples:

Direct payments. The amount of money the federal government hands out in direct payments to individuals steadily increased over the past four decades, but shot up under Obama, climbing by almost $600 billion — a 32% increase — in his first three years. And Obama's last budget called for these payments to climb another $500 billion by 2016, at which point they would account for fully two-thirds of all federal spending.

People getting benefits. According to the Census Bureau 49% now live in homes where at least one person gets a federal benefit — Social Security, workers comp, unemployment, subsidized housing, and the like. That's up from 44% the year before Obama took office, and way up from 1983, when fewer than a third were government beneficiaries.

Food stamps. This year, more than 46 million (15% of all Americans) will get food stamps. That's 45% higher than when Obama took office, and twice as high as the average for the previous 40 years. This surge was driven in part by the recession, but also because Obama boosted the benefit amount as part of his stimulus plan.

Disability. The number of people on Social Security disability has steadily climbed since the 1970s, thanks mainly to easier eligibility rules. But their numbers jumped 10% in Obama's first two years in office, according to the Social Security Administration. That sharp rise was due largely to meager job prospects since the recession ended in 2009. When employment opportunities are scarce, experts note, many who could otherwise work sign up for disability benefits instead.

Health care. The government's role in health care has grown over the past decades, with 45% of all health spending now coming from the federal government, up from 32% in 1990. But this trend will dramatically accelerate should ObamaCare remain the law of the land. In eight years, ObamaCare will add 16 million people to Medicaid, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and another 24 million will be getting coverage through heavily subsidized government-run insurance exchanges, with the cost of those subsidies running $130 billion a year.

Corporate welfare. Prior to Obama, the federal government was already dishing out $92 billion in corporate welfare programs — in the form of subsidized loans, special tax breaks, bailouts and the like — the Cato Institute found. Obama added tremendously to this largesse. Federal grants to the energy sector, for example, quadrupled to over $18 billion in 2009, according to the Pew Charitable Trusts' Subsidyscope.

While each of these and other federal benefit programs may be designed with good intentions, their combined weight is already overwhelming the budget.

In just nine years, entitlement spending is on track to eat up 61% of the federal budget, according to the CBO. And unless these programs are cut back, they will soon consume all federal taxes, one CBO budget scenario predicts.

The problem is that once federal benefits get started, few Americans want to see them cut back, much less eliminated. Even with $1 trillion annual deficits, just 24% would support cutting Social Security and only 16% would back Medicare cuts, according to the November 2011 IBD/TIPP poll.

"Once we thought 'entitlement' meant that Americans were entitled to the privilege of trying to succeed in the greatest country in the world," Romney said in a recent speech. "But today the new entitlement battle is over the size of the check you get from Washington."

Chris Dodd, the MPAA, and the US Congress

...aka the shining example of corrupted, crony capitalism. I love capitalism. I despise crony capitalism. Chris Dodd bailed out of Congress when it became clear that his shady dealings with Countrywide and other mortgage companies would come back to bite him. And the MPAA gave him 7 figures a year to keep in touch with DC. Read the original here.

MPAA Directly & Publicly Threatens Politicians Who Aren't Corrupt Enough To Stay Bought
from the sickening dept

Reinforcing the fact that Chris Dodd really does not get what's happening, and showing just how disgustingly corrupt the MPAA relationship is with politicians, Chris Dodd went on Fox News toexplicitly threaten politicians who accept MPAA campaign donations that they'd better pass Hollywood's favorite legislation... or else:

"Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,"

This certainly follows what many people assumed was happening, and fits with the anonymous comments from studio execs that they will stop contributing to Obama, but to be so blatant about this kind of corruption and money-for-laws politics in the face of an extremely angry public is a really, really, really tone deaf response from Dodd.

It shows, yet again, that he just doesn't get it. People were protesting not just because of the content of these bills, but because of the corrupt process of big industries like Dodd's "buying" politicians and "buying" laws. To then come out and make that threat explicit isn't a way to fix things or win back the public. It's just going to get them more upset, and to recognize just how corrupt this process is. If Dodd, as he said in yesterday's NY Times, really wanted to turn things around and come to a more reasonable result, this is exactly how not to do it. It shows, yet again, a DC-insider's mindset. He used Fox News to try to "send a message" to politicians. But the internet already sent a much louder message... and, even worse for Dodd, he bizarrely sent his message in a way that everyone who's already fed up with this kind of corruption can see it too. It really makes you wonder what he's thinking and how someone so incompetent at this could keep his job.

The MPAA doesn't need a DC insider explicitly demanding the right to buy laws and buy politicians. The MPAA needs a reformer, one who helps guide Hollywood into the opportunities of a new market place. The MPAA needs someone who actually understands the internet, and helps lead the studios forward. That's apparently not Chris Dodd.

Public Knowledge issued a fantastic statement that not only highlights the ridiculousness of Dodd's threats, but also the hypocrisy of the Hollywood studios on this issue:

Public Knowledge welcomes constructive dialog with people from all affected sectors about issues surrounding copyright, the state of the movie industry and related concerns. Cybersecurity experts, Internet engineers, venture capitalists, artists, entrepreneurs, human rights advocates, law professors, consumers and public-interest organizations, among others should be included. They were shut out of the process for these bills.

We suggest that in the meantime, if the MPAA is truly concerned about the jobs of truck drivers and others in the industry, then it can bring its overseas filming back to the U.S. and create more jobs. It could stop holding states hostage for millions of dollars in subsidies that strained state budgets can’t afford while pushing special-interest bills through state legislatures. While that happens, discussions could take place.

Not really trying too hard

Did the state of the union speech sound familiar at all? Weekly Standard thinks it does. Read the original here.

Haven't We Heard this Before?
11:46 PM, JAN 24, 2012 • BY DANIEL HALPER

The Republican National Committee has compiled this video comparing lines President Obama used tonight in his State of the Union Address with lines he used in previous addresses before Congress:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDDRiGIUYQo

Obama 2010: "It's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs.

Obama 2012: "Colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down."

***

Obama 2010: "And we should continue the work by fixing our broken immigration system."

Obama 2011: "I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration."

Obama 2012: "I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration."

***

Obama 2010: "We face a deficit of trust."

Obama 2012: "I've talked tonight about the deficit of trust . . ."

***

Obama 2010: "We can't wage a perpetual campaign."

Obama 2012: "We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign."

***

The good news is that after a couple years these sorts of speeches begin to write themselves.

How much did you give to charity?

Not sure how relevant it is...but it might go to character. But don't take it from me...that's the pot calling the kettle black. Read the original here.

Obama Gave 1% to Charity, Romney Gave 15%
AP File

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.

The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income.

Romney charitable contributions

Tax year Taxable income Charitable donations Donations as % of income
2010 $21.7 million $2.98 million 13.73%
2011 (est) $20.9 million $4 million 19.14%

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/01/24/whos-greedy-obama-gave-1-charity-romney-gave-15#ixzz1kThsCi7k

Democrats want to determine how much profit you're allowed to make?

Umm...does this strike anyone else as inherently un-capitalistic and un-american? Who is the government to tell me how successful I can legally be? Read the original here.

Dems propose 'Reasonable Profits Board' to regulate oil company profitsBy Pete Kasperowicz - 01/19/12 10:20 AM ET

Six House Democrats, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), want to set up a "Reasonable Profits Board" to control gas profits.

The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a "windfall profit tax" as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what constitutes a reasonable profit.

The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784, would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding "a reasonable profit." It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress.

The bill would also seem to exclude industry representatives from the board, as it says members "shall have no financial interests in any of the businesses for which reasonable profits are determined by the Board."

According to the bill, a windfall tax of 50 percent would be applied when the sale of oil or gas leads to a profit of between 100 percent and 102 percent of a reasonable profit. The windfall tax would jump to 75 percent when the profit is between 102 and 105 percent of a reasonable profit, and above that, the windfall tax would be 100 percent. The bill also specifies that the oil-and-gas companies, as the seller, would have to pay this tax.

Kucinich said these tax revenues would be used to fund alternative transportation programs when oil-and-gas prices spike.

"Gas prices continue to rise, creating a hardship for the American people," he said. "At the same time, oil companies are making record profits gouging their customers. This bill would tax only the excess profits and create forward-thinking transportation alternatives."

Specifically, he said the money would be used to fund a tax credit on the purchase of fuel-efficient cars and set up a grant program for mass transit programs when oil-and-gas prices are high.

The bill does not estimate the size of these grants or the amount of money that might be collected through the tax.

Co-sponsoring the bill are five other Democrats: Reps. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), Bob Filner (Calif.), Marcia Fudge (Ohio), Jim Langevin (R.I.), and Lynn Woolsey (Calif.).

Newsweek is working hard for 2012...

After they drop all pretense at being an objective news organization. Read the original here.  The money quote: "He noted that one of Obama’s biggest problems is that he “isn’t out there … grandstanding and talking about his accomplishments in a way that may be necessary to break through the noise."



(the 1/23/2012 Newsweek cover h/t: The Huffington Post)





Right blogs take on Newsweek cover


The latest edition of Newsweek features the face of a pensive President Barack Obama along with the provocative headline: “Why are Obama’s critics so dumb?” — and that’s hit a little too close to home for conservative bloggers.

Joel Pollak, editor in chief of Breitbart.com, turned the cover’s question around on Andrew Sullivan, who penned the magazine’s cover story, in a blog post called, “Why is Andrew Sullivan so dumb?”

“You’d have to be stupid, fanatical and dishonest to argue — as Trig Truther Sullivan does — that Barack Obama’s failures are part of an ingenious ‘long game’ that is destined to succeed,” Pollak wrote. “If this is the best Obama’s supporters can do, Obama’s only hope for reelection is the weak Republican field.”

Similarly, Power Line’s John Hinderaker vented in a blog post titled, “We must be really, really stupid!”

“Well, sure. We who are unhappy that unemployment has increased on Obama’s watch, that over-regulation has stymied economic growth, that our children now owe a $15 trillion debt that we can’t pay — hey, we’re just dumb!” he blasted. “We obviously aren’t smart enough to understand how devastating our economy, unemploying millions of Americans and burdening our children with trillions of dollars in debt is really a great idea.”

Sullivan, a self-described “unabashed supporter of Obama from early 2007 on,” writes in the cover story that attacks against the president are not only out of bounds but “simply — empirically — wrong.”

“Given the enormity of what he inherited, and given what he explicitly promised, it remains simply a fact that Obama has delivered in a way that the unhinged right and purist left have yet to understand or absorb,” Sullivan wrote. “Their short-term outbursts have missed Obama’s long game — and why his reelection remains, in my view, as essential for this country’s future as his original election in 2008.”

The story was rated by Townhall’s Managing Editor Kevin Glass as “a doozy about how conservatives are delusional and the left-wing base is just dumber than the president,” and he added that the Newsweek writer has bought into what he called “The Obama Delusion.”

“The president’s critics, on both sides, have and will continue to make sound critiques. And Andrew Sullivan and The Daily Beast are just trolling us,” Glass wrote.

“Is there anything the mainstream media won’t do to get Obama reelected?” Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters wanted to know.

The Weekly Standard’s Mark Hemingway ripped Newsweek for falling deeper into “self-parody”: “If in recent years it seems as if Newsweek has been descending into self-parody, it’s still hard to imagine that this is real.”

And over at Red State, the magazine’s cover inspired blogger Caleb Howe to exercise some creative liberties by declaring a “Photoshop contest” to make a fake Newsweek cover.

“I’m assuming the thought process, such as it is, was ‘controversial sells magazines,’” he wrote. “So in that light, I have a suggestion for Newsweek’s next cover, one that will really stir things up.”

One of Howe’s several mock Newsweek covers features a sad-faced puppy and the words: “Puppies: Why our editors torture them.”

Sullivan defended the president’s record Monday evening, saying, “Obama has governed as he said he would, as a sensible, pragmatic centrist.” He explained that a frustration about lies people were telling about the president’s record had inspired him to write the cover story.

“I just got frustrated hearing all these people tell untruths about the record,” Sullivan said on MSNBC. “The record is that he has done something perfectly sensible — he’s fulfilled the promises that he made to turn this country round slowly.”

He urged Obama’s critics to have more “patience” when scrutinizing the president’s accomplishments, and suggested that critics approach their negotiations with the president without a “fantasy about who this guy is.”

“He’s not a big old lefty,” he added. “I mean, ask the left. He’s a compromiser in the middle and I think what he’s done is set out very carefully where he wants to go.”

Mark Miller, assistant managing editor of Newsweek, insisted earlier on Monday that Sullivan’s piece articulates criticism of the president from “both the left and the right.”

“I think Andrew makes the case fairly well that the way that he’s been caricatured by the right and the way that the left is disappointed with him doesn’t actually serve him well,” Miller said on MSNBC.

He noted that one of Obama’s biggest problems is that he “isn’t out there … grandstanding and talking about his accomplishments in a way that may be necessary to break through the noise.”