Open Thread: What is on your mind

Now that we know none of the progressives/liberals/Democrats care that Rahm Emanuel called them "F*cking retards". Maybe that could be their new name knowing how they like to change their names so often. And if they don't like their new names, call them "F*cking retards". But since you know better then to use that kind of language lets keep it nice. And if I hear anyone use the word "negro" other then a white "F*cking retard" named Harry Reid I'll pull the post. For all of you that have no sense of humor I am joking. LOL
First, I’ve got a new video up called “What Does The Federal Budget Freeze Look Like?”

Here is the data summary of this video:
I got the budget numbers (budget, discretionary, mandatory) from the overview of the 2010 budget which includes projections for 2011. I did this because the 2011 budget is not available yet (although I understand that those projections are a bit low and the real budget will be bigger than the projection).
That gives us the following numbers:

• 2011 Federal Budget – $3.7 trillion
• Mandatory portion of federal budget – $2.322 trillion
• Discretionary portion of federal budget – $1,380 trillion

I’ve seen it consistently reported that the freeze will affect $447 billion of the budget, although I imagine that number is subject to change. The amount saved from this freeze has been consistently reported as $15 billion in the first year and $250 billion over 10 years.
The stimulus funds as reported by recovery.gov at the time of this post are:

That leaves:

• $195 billion in tax cuts that have not been applied
• $202 billion in contracts, grants and loans that haven’t been spent
• $121 billion in entitlements (what a creepy name) that haven’t been spent

If we left the tax cuts in place, but canceled the rest of the spending, we’d save $323 billion… which is a shade less than what I said in the video. Apparently, that is the result of some rounding errors in my spreadsheet, but the $4 billion comes out to about one and a half teaspoons, which isn’t enough to make a difference in the visualization.
As for the water part of it… If we assume that the budget is 192 ounces of water that we’ve split into 4 oz cups, then all the math in the video works out. I actually under-counted the unspent stimulus (it would be 17 ounces instead of 16). I measured my ice cube tray and found that each ice cube was 1.5 ounces and I used 1 and a half tablespoons of water to measure out the .75 ounces that would be equivalent to $15 billion.

<End of Boring Math Things>

OK… now to comment on what I think about the budget freeze to anyone who cares what I actually think.
First of all, I hate the “we’re saving $250 billion over 10 years” line. It is a piece of crass political rhetoric and I’m disappointed that the administration would use it. If they actually implement a three year freeze on the portion of the budget they’re talking about (which is a big if, but let’s assume the best), why measure the effects in the space of 10 years?
The answer is “To make the freeze look bigger”. They’re basically just basing the extended savings off of projected interest payments and “savings” due to the fact that the baseline on that portion of the budget hasn’t moved. It is setting a dangerous data precedent where politicians realize that all they have to do is calculate a projection out as far as they need in order to get the numbers they want. It would be like giving an employee a $5,000 bonus, but saying that you gave them a $8,000 bonus based on a 5% return of that investment over the course of 10 years.  They might as well say that they’re saving a trillion dollars over the next 25 years or a hundred trillion over the next 300 years. It is a data statement designed to trick people.
Second, I hate the “We’re saving all this money by not spending it” line because it is similarly political. If a future politician wants to play this stupid numbers game, all they have to do is “project” that they will spend like a crazy person next year and when the next year comes, they decided to spend like a half crazy person. Then they can claim that they have “saved” all this money because they “reduced” their projected spending.
As a slapdash example, a politician could project that they will increase spending by 5% next year and then decide at the last moment to increase it by 3%. They could then spin that decision to increase by a smaller amount as a decision to “cut” their spending (which wasn’t real spending, only projected spending) by 2%.
Last, my attempt to visualize the scale of the budget freeze does not mean I don’t support it. I really like to see cuts to the budget and I personally think this is not an insignificant one.I think it is worth our energy to do exactly what the Obama administration seems to be doing…freezing increases and looking around for crappy programs to cut.
Keep in mind the hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. The Republicans are hypocrites for claiming that this is a totally inconsequential budget cut. In 2005, George W. Bush proposed a 1% cut (not a freeze, a cut) in discretionary spending that wasn’t Department of Defense or Homeland Security. Translated to today, Bush’s cuts would have “saved” $33 billion using the calculation metric for the current freeze; more than twice the amount that this freeze would save us. At the time, John McCain called it a “very austere budget” and Dick Cheney went out pushing their credentials as cost cutters. I find it strange that they were ecstatic about saving the equivalent of $33 billion but think that $15 billion is a drop in a bucket.
Of course the Democrats blasted Bush’s cuts as a gimmick too small to make a difference, but seem to have lost much of their skepticism over these new, smaller “cuts”.
Overall, it looks like both sides are more interested in political gain than in having a frank discussion about the numbers and what they mean. This should surprise no one, but I confess to finding myself somewhat dismayed that the Obama administration, for all their hype about being pro-science and pro-data, has no problem spinning the numbers in a way that decreases clear comprehension in order to increase message potency.

Sarah Palin Calls For Rahm Emanuel To Be Canned

Sarah Palin calls for Rahm Emanuel to  be canned for calling a progressive group’s idea to target moderate Democrats with attack ads “f*cking retardes". This after Obama had made fun of the Special Olympics.  What do the progressives have to say about being called "f*cking retards" by a Democrat of all people? This is getting comedic.We have seen racism from the left,bigotry of Christian and Jews and a genocidal war on people with Down Syndrom and other disabilities. When their is 1 out of every 150 kids born with Autism today the Obama admin better stop looking down on the least of Gods creatures.

Here is Palin’s Facebook remark: 

Are You Capable of Decency, Rahm Emanuel?

The newly-released mind-boggling, record-smashing $3,400,000,000,000 federal budget invites plenty of opportunity to debate the merits of incurring more and more debt that will drown the next generation of Americans. Never has it been possible to spend your way out of debt. So... let the debate begin.

Included in the debate process will be opportunities for our president to deliberate internally the wisdom of this debt explosion, along with other economic, military and social issues facing our country. Our president will discuss these important issues with Democrat leaders and those within his inner circle. I would ask the president to show decency in this process by eliminating one member of that inner circle, Mr. Rahm Emanuel, and not allow Rahm’s continued indecent tactics to cloud efforts. Yes, Rahm is known for his caustic, crude references about those with whom he disagrees, but his recent tirade against participants in a strategy session was such a strong slap in many American faces that our president is doing himself a disservice by seeming to condone Rahm’s recent sick and offensive tactic. 

The Obama Administration’s Chief of Staff scolded participants, calling them, “F---ing retarded,” according to several participants, as reported in the Wall Street Journal. 

Just as we’d be appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever used the “N-word” or other such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities – and the people who love them – is unacceptable, and it’s heartbreaking. 

A patriot in North Andover, Massachusetts, notified me of Rahm’s “retarded” slam. I join this gentleman, who is the father of a beautiful child born with Down Syndrome, in asking why the Special Olympics, National Down Syndrome Society and other groups condemning Rahm’s degrading scolding have been completely ignored by the White House. No comment from his boss, the president?

As my friend in North Andover says, “This isn’t about politics; it’s about decency. I am not speaking as a political figure but as a parent and as an everyday American wanting my child to grow up in a country free from mindless prejudice and discrimination, free from gratuitous insults of people who are ostensibly smart enough to know better... Have you no sense of decency, sir?”

Mr. President, you can do better, and our country deserves better.

Sarah Palin                                                          

From Ben Smith Politico: 

A White House official emails that Rahm Emanuel has acknowledged calling liberal Democrats "retarded" and apologized for the remark.

"Rahm called Tim Shriver Wednesday to apologize and the apology was accepted," the official said.

Shriver is the Chairman and CEO of the Special Olympics, which has launched acampaign against what it calls "the R word."

The remark was first reported last week in the Wall Street Journal, and drew an extended attack from Sarah Palin.

Said the official, “The White House remains committed to addressing the concerns and needs of Americans living with disabilities and recognizes that derogatory remarks demean us all.”

UPDATE: A Democrat points out Rahm apologized to Shriver, but not to the liberals he called "retarded."

-

Beck On The Budget

“We want results, not rhetoric. We want cooperation, not partisanship.”

How can the Democrats keep blaming Bush/Republicans with this kind of data?
As Obama releases his latest budget today, here’s something to think about. We’ve heard the speeches and the promises. What are the results? From House Republicans:









Republicans “Better Solutions”
And in case you haven’t heard, Republicans do have a better idea. Their “Better Solutions” document outlines the ideas they have offered over the past year to address:

• Jobs
• Health Care
• Fiscal Responsibility
• Open Government and Transparency
• Energy
• Savings
• National Security
• Financial Reform

Get your copy of “Better Solutions” here. Don't loose "Hope" yet. As more and more Americans are feeling hopeless we need to think about the future not the past. Washington is need of real "Change". And come this Nov.2010 and 2012 we need to take back America. We need to vote for real change not the retoric that the Democrats gave us. If  "Better Solutions" is the kind of change you want to see then vote for that change.

I Thought Obama Would Bring Peace With His Voice And Hope/Change? Can Obama Bow His Way Out Of This One?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says the nation will deliver a harsh blow to the "global arrogance" on this year's anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. 

"The Islamic Revolution opened a window to liberty for the human race, which was trapped in the dead ends of materialism," Ahmadinejad said during a cabinet meeting on Sunday. 

"If the Islamic Revolution had not occurred, liberalism and Marxism would have crushed all human dignity in their power-seeking and money-grubbing claws. Nothing would have remained of human and spiritual principles," he added. 

Ahmadinejad said that in the three decades of its history, the Islamic Revolution had inspired some great developments in the world. 

The Iranian president made the remarks as the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution approaches. 

Iranians are expected to pour into the streets on February 11 to celebrate the occasion in public rallies across the country, as they have done annually over the past three decades.                                                                                I Know it's all Bush's fault as well as the Christians. Obama did a lot of talking about how if he bows to our enemies they will not hate us anymore. How is that working out for us now? North Korea keeps eroding and now Iran wants to play hardball with the weak Democrat. I pray Obama grows some and scares the piss out of these progressive dictators. It is becoming more and more evident that President Obama doesn't know how to handle these axis of evil. Maybe the progessives call all get together and sing or write letters to these progressive dictators. Do you feel safer knowing that Obama will do the right thing and put these idiots back in their place? Or will he fumble around like a greenhorn. Even if Obama gets tough for a change, will they believe him? It's time the President starts attacking our real enemies instead of the political ones he spends most of his time on. The world is watching and they are reacting accordingly. We can not afford to be attacked by another agressor right now. Do you remember what happened to the stock market after 9/11? And Bush was a friend of business unlike Obama. Say a prayer because I'm afraid that will be our only hope. God help us because the Democrats aren't helping us.

The Democrats Are In Big Trouble And It's The Progressives Fault Not Bush's

Do not freak out about Sen. Snowe talking to the Dems.
Senator Snowe has rejected moving forward on any health care bill with the Democrats using reconciliation. This is GREAT NEWS. Without reconciliation the Dems will be in a de novo — start at the beginning — situation, which is where they should start.
If the desperate Dems try reconciliation, this time, they will have a far more serious Republican strategy of “outright war” to deal with — and the repercussions of being on ObamaCare on the Senate floor and in Senate Committees for months and months.
The Dems would be so bloodied and beaten and wounded by the end of their attempt, ObamaCare would not pass, and they would have destroyed the less than one percent chance to explain to the American people that they are not dangerous radicals that ignore what the people want, and keep cramming ObamaCare down the public’s throat because they, the Dems in Washington, know better.
Politico, quoting Sen. Snowe:

“Snowe made it very clear she could not support any form of a bill that came through the reconciliation process—a legislative move she called “wrong and untenable….”

“I hope they reject the reconciliation route. I think that would be wrong and untenable,” Snowe said. “There are things in the bill that could be supported regarding small business that I have worked with Sen. Durbin, Sen. Lincoln, and the small business community… some tax incentives, allowing plans to be purchased across state lines—that would all be invaluable to small business who are undeniably facing a crisis with health care cost.”

The Dems have repeatedly wanted and acted in Dem-only mode for health care reform and have had their heads handed to them in NJ, VA and MA. There is no guarantee they will not continue their arrogant and self-destructive behavior. The voters aren’t stupid, if the Dems keep pushing a Dem-only approach — with even fewer, more liberal Dems, then the public will think they are even more dangerous and more crazy than they think they are now — and when NPR gets a 5 point generic ballot edge for the GOP — which doubles to 10 points when you look at likely voters, and the Dems keep pushing and keep ignoring the public, then they really, truly have lost their minds.
For the Dems to try to pass health care via reconciliation, the House and Senate Democrats must overcome substantial ill-will towards each other, and begin to trust each other.

We will mop the floor with them, if they try reconciliation and their political pain and back-biting will reach unheard of levels. BIG FUN.                 Posted by Dan Perrin

More groveling by this pathetic President.

Democrats Keep Spending And Then Blame The Republicans. BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What a bunch of buffoons

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's proposed budget predicts the national deficit will crest at a record-breaking $1.6 trillion in the current fiscal year, then start to recede in 2011 to $1.3 trillion, a congressional official said Sunday.
Still, the administration's new budget to be released Monday says deficits over the next decade will average 4.5 percent of the size of the economy, a level which economists say is dangerously high if not addressed, said the congressional official. The official was not authorized to discuss the budget before its public release.
Details of the administration's budget headed for Congress include an additional $100 billion to attack painfully high unemployment. The proposed $3.8 trillion budget would provide billions more to pull the country out of the Great Recession while increasing taxes on the wealthy and imposing a spending freeze on many government programs.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the administration believed "somewhere in the $100 billion range" would be the appropriate amount for a new jobs measure made up of a business tax credit to encourage hiring, increased infrastructure spending and money from the government's bailout fund to get banks to increase loans to struggling small businesses.
That price tag would be below a $174 billion bill passed by the House in December but higher than an $83 billion proposal that surfaced last week in the Senate.
Gibbs said it was important for Democrats and Republicans to put aside their differences to pass a bill that addresses jobs, the country's No. 1 concern. "I think that would be a powerful signal to send to the American people," Gibbs said in an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union."
Job creation was a key theme of the budget President Barack Obama was sending Congress on Monday, a document designed, as was the president's State of the Union address, to reframe his young presidency after a protracted battle over health care damaged his standing in public opinion polls and contributed to a series of Democratic election defeats.
Obama's $3.8 trillion spending plan for the 2011 budget year that begins Oct. 1 attempts to navigate between the opposing goals of pulling the country out of a deep recession and dealing with a budget deficit that soared to an all-time high of $1.42 trillion last year.
The Congressional Budget Office is forecasting that the deficit for the current budget year will be only slightly lower, $1.35 trillion, and the flood of red ink will remain massive for years to come, raising worries among voters and the foreign investors who buy much of the country's debt.
On the anti-recession front, congressional sources said Obama's new budget will propose extending the popular Making Work Pay middle-class tax breaks of $400 per individual and $800 per couple through 2011. They were due to expire after this year.
The budget will also propose $250 payments to Social Security recipients to bolster their finances in a year when they are not receiving the normal cost-of-living boost to their benefit checks because of low inflation. Obama will also seek a $25 billion increase in payments to help recession-battered states.
Obama's new budget will set off months of debate in the Democratically controlled Congress, especially in an election year in which Republicans are hoping to use attacks against government overspending to gain seats. Obama has argued that he inherited a deficit of more than $1 trillion and was forced to increase spending to stabilize the financial system and combat the worst recession since the 1930s.
Obama's new budget was expected to repeat many of the themes of his first budget. But in a bow to worries over the soaring deficits, the administration is proposing a three-year freeze on spending for a wide swath of domestic government agencies. Military, veterans, homeland security and big benefit programs such as Social Security and Medicare would not feel the pinch.
The freeze would affect $447 billion in spending and is designed to save $250 billion over a decade. However, it would not fall equally on all domestic agencies. Some would see budget cuts to free up spending for programs the administration wants to expand such as education and civilian research efforts.
NASA's mission to return astronauts to the moon would be grounded with the space agency instead getting an additional $5.9 billion over five years to encourage private companies to build, launch and operate their own spacecraft for the benefit of NASA and others. NASA would pay the private companies to carry U.S. astronauts.
Obama's budget repeats his recommendations for an overhaul of the nation's health care system, the fight that dominated his first year in office. It proposes to get billions of dollars in savings from the Medicare program and again seeks increased taxes on the wealthy by limiting the benefits they receive from various tax deductions. Both ideas have met strong resistance in Congress.
Gibbs insisted Sunday that the president's push for health care was "still inside the 5-yard line," but Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, also appearing on CNN, said the public was overwhelmingly against the bill and the administration should "put it on the shelf, go back and start over."
In addition to the freeze on discretionary nonsecurity spending, Obama is proposing to boost revenues by allowing the Bush administration tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire at the end of this year for families making more than $250,000 annually. Tax relief for those less well-off would be extended.
The new Obama budget will also include a proposal to levy a fee on the country's biggest banks to raise an estimated $90 billion to recover losses from the government's $700 billion financial rescue fund. Those losses are expected to come not come from the bank bailouts but from the support extended to General Motors and Chrysler and insurance giant American International Group as well as help provided to homeowners struggling to avoid foreclosures.
Also on the deficit front, the president has endorsed a pay-as-you-go proposal that passed the Senate last week. It would require any new tax cuts or entitlement spending increases to be paid for, and he has promised to create a commission to recommend by year's end ways to trim the deficits. However, a legislatively mandated panel was rejected in a Senate vote last week. Republicans opposed establishing the panel because it might recommend tax increases to close the deficit.

Republicans Are Still The Party Of NO. Thank God For That

PAYGO...Big spenders want you to think they’re actually deficit hawks. They’re lauding themselves for passing PAYGO legislation in the U.S. House, with praise from President Obama. But this bill is more loophole than substance. And Congress retains the power to waive its flimsy requirements whenever it wishes.
PAYGO is about creating political cover, not about controlling spending. Supposedly, pay-as-you-go requires that extra spending in one area must be offset by reducing spending elsewhere, or raising taxes, or requiring the President to sequester funds before they are spent.

The Congressional Budget Office says the measure “would allow the Congress to enact legislation that would increase deficits by an amount in the vicinity of $3 trillion over the 2010–2019 period without triggering a sequestration.”

Washington Post columnist David Broder agrees that the loopholes are enormous. For example, he writes, “the 40 percent of the budget reflected in annual appropriations bills for ongoing or new government programs does not have to be paid for.”

The moderate-dominated Committee for a Responsible Budget outlines the exemptions and concludes, “By exempting such costly policies, this PAYGO legislation keeps us on an unsustainable fiscal path.”

The conservative House Republican Study Committee states, “The idea seems great on the surface, but the Democrat version of PAYGO is so riddled with loopholes and exemptions that it only continues the mockery of fiscal restraint this Congress has come to represent.”

Most of the praise is coming from the lawmakers who wanted to give themselves political cover and now are patting themselves on the back. Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL) called it, “a tremendous victory for the American people and for those of us who know that our federal government cannot afford to continue to live outside its means.”

The bill gives House members “an ability to put out a press release to make it look like they’re being fiscally responsible,” Paul Ryan, the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, told Reuters.

The House approved the bill yesterday by 265-166. Will the Senate approve the bill? Very possibly, although Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) told reporters he agreed with Republicans that the PAYGO bill includes too many loopholes.

The Associated Press reported, “By itself, pay-go does nothing to address the government’s deficit woes. . . .The pay-go measure wouldn’t force lawmakers to find the courage to actually do anything to stanch the flow of red ink; it instead seeks to prevent lawmakers from making it even worse. . . . But even if pay-go has the force of law, it can be waived.”

In typical Washington-speak, the bill never labels the loopholes as “exemptions,” but instead calls them “current policy adjustments.” Analysts says these exemptions include Social Security payments, food stamps, Medicaid, most of Medicare, payments to federal retirees, the pay of the President and former Presidents, all discretionary (non-entitlement) spending, estate and gift taxes, the alternative minimum tax for individuals, the middle-income tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, anything designated as an “emergency”, children’s health, Pell Grants, all economic recovery programs, veterans’ benefits, and much more.

In this case, the holes are bigger than the cheese.

Who Do They Serve?

The Stimulus Bill gave our money to who the Democrats wanted. It went towards the unions. It made government jobs and SEIU larger while doing almost nothing for the private sector. How does makeing unions like SEIU larger and the governement larger help this country? The Democrats have done nothing short of punishing the private sector.  They have called the private sector greedy when the government jobs make almost 75% more then the private sector. They have given we the people more of a burden to bare with added governement programes and governemnet employees.  And when the Tea Party protesters demanded their conservative voice be heard SEIU member came out in force as a civil army to shut them up with FORCE.                                                                                                                                           As most of the UAW workers at Ford can see. It is a good thing when the privet company you work for does well. For years the UAW has made the companies that support them, the enemy. Many within the ranks and file in the UAW have spent a lifetime demonizing Ford Motor Company. But now that GM and Chrysler aren't doing so well. Even with our huge loans to them.                                                                How will the Democrats react when the Republicans bring ballance to our economy? Will they say that they are anti union? Most likely. But hopefully the Republicans can stand tall and do what it takes to save our nation. We need to root out these Progressives within the ranks or our government. They are in both parties. And we must put the light on them and their true intentions. Many within the Progressive movement are trying to point out that I takes two wrongs to make a right. We need to just make thing right again.