Hey Geoffrey! Maybe "savant syndrome"....
No, I disagree that somehow President Obama can be compared to Bush, (And I am no Bush fan....I did think both George and Jeb were great Governors, but can you envision Jeb as President? About equivalent to Hil Clinton!) On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 2:53 PM, geoffrey theist <[email protected]>wrote: > maybe in most cases Keith but in this instance savant should go after > idiot. > > On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Kevin Gutzman is an idiot.... > > > > > > On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:57 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> ROTFLMAO! > >> > >> Regard$, > >> --MJ > >> > >> "Republicans commonly complain that President Obama and his supporters > >> blame President Bush II for much of what is wrong in contemporary > America. > >> This complaint's chief weakness is that Bush II is responsible for much > >> that's wrong in contemporary America. My chief complaint with President > >> Obama is that in reappointing Bernanke, rattling sabers over Syria, > pushing > >> immigration amnesty, continuing the Drug War, legislating via signing > >> statements, spending prodigally, pushing through Obamacare, etc., he has > >> built on the foreign-policy, constitutional, and spending legacies of > Bush > >> II." -- Kevin Gutzman > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> The Obama Watch > >> > >> Light at the End of the Tunnel > >> > >> The passing of the Age of Obama. > >> > >> By Peter Ferrara – 5.7.14 > >> > >> Conservatives need to wake up and start thinking past the rapidly > passing > >> age of Obama. Increasingly likely every day is that voters this November > >> will remove Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader. By electing a new > >> Republican Senate majority, the voters will also render Barack Obama a > lame > >> duck, one of the lamest in history, as he will have no prayer of > getting any > >> of his legislative proposals —” increasingly recognized as hard left — > >> through Congress. (Despite his early national rhetoric, Obama doesn’t > do > >> bipartisanship.) > >> > >> That new Republican Senate majority will also be a new check and balance > >> on Obama’s appointment of federal judges, reversing the effect of the > Reid > >> rule change eliminating Republican judicial filibusters. That is > especially > >> crucial given that the five remaining Reagan/Bush appointees on the > Court > >> constitute the slimmest of majorities, with a couple of occasionally > weak > >> sisters among them. If just one of these five is replaced by another > Elena > >> Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor, the resulting shift from a Reagan majority on > the > >> Court to an Obama one would mean a longer-term Obama transformation of > >> America. > >> > >> Given the long-term cycles of American political history, Obama’s > second > >> midterm this year should be even worse for Democrats than the disastrous > >> Obama first midterm in 2010. And the polls are bearing out that > possibility. > >> > >> The latest is a Pew/USA Today poll finding that 47 percent favor the > >> Republican candidate for Congress in their district or state, while 43 > >> percent favor the Democrat. That is a sharp turnaround from last > October, > >> when Democrats held a 6 point lead in the same generic midterm > preference > >> poll, 49 percent to 43 percent. The new Pew poll also finds a 16 point > GOP > >> lead among independent voters. > >> > >> Moreover, the Pew poll finds that “65% would like to see the next > >> President offer different policies and programs from the Obama > >> Administration while 30 percent want Obama’s successor to offer > similar > >> policies,†as reported by Jason Riley in the May 5 Wall Street Journal. > >> > >> In an April 27 Washington Post/ABC News poll, President Obama’s > approval > >> rating was down to an all-time low of 41 percent. That poll featured an > 11 > >> point Democratic advantage in the sample, which indicates further > weakness > >> in that Obama support, especially as compared to the 2010 midterm > turnout > >> rather than the 2012 turnout. > >> > >> For context, in April 2010, President Obama’s job approval in that > >> Washington Post/ABC News poll was 54 percent. In October 2010, just > before > >> the voters administered their first midterm beating to Democrats, > Obama’s > >> job approval was still 50 percent. > >> > >> Similarly, the April Gallup poll showed an Obama approval rating of 43 > >> percent, compared to an April 2010 Obama approval rating in that poll > of 49 > >> percent, and an early November 2010 approval rating of 44 percent. The > >> latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found Obama’s job approval at 44 > >> percent, compared to a May 11, 2010 approval of 50 percent, and an > October > >> 30, 2010 approval of 45 percent. So consistently in all these polls, > Obama > >> was doing better in 2010 just before that year’s Democrat blowout > than he > >> is doing this year. > >> > >> The Washington Post/ABC News poll also found only 42 percent approval of > >> Obama’s handling of the economy, lower than the 44 percent in the > October > >> 2010 poll. Most damning of all, 53 percent in the 2014 poll say it is > more > >> important to have Republican congressional majorities to check Obama’s > >> policies, compared to 39 percent who believe it is more important to > have > >> Democratic congressional majorities to support those policies. > >> > >> Bottom line in that poll, 45 percent say they plan to vote for > Democratic > >> candidates for Congress this fall, compared to 44 percent who say they > plan > >> to vote for Republican congressional candidates. But in October 2010, > the > >> Washington Post/ABC News poll showed Democrats with a 5-point advantage > on > >> that question, just before voters granted Republicans a 63-seat gain in > the > >> House, and a 6 to 7 seat gain in the Senate (depending on how you count > the > >> November 2010 affirmation of Scott Brown’s special election pickup of > >> Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat). > >> > >> These polls above, and state by state polls, are consistent with a > >> Republican pickup in this fall’s midterm of as many as 10 Senate > seats, > >> establishing a new 55 to 45 Republican Senate majority, and 20 more > House > >> seats. To maximize that victory, Republicans need to campaign on a > >> pro-growth platform of specific reforms to get America booming again as > >> under Reagan. But in designing those proposals, conservative and > Republican > >> candidates, think tanks, publications, and policy intellectuals need to > >> think past what can possibly be compromised with President Obama, and > take > >> their case for populist, pro-growth reforms directly to the people. > >> > >> That should begin with pro-growth tax reform. Directly contrary to the > >> Thomas Piketty/MSNBC socialists celebrating around massive, far left, > >> anti-growth increases in tax rates on the most productive, Republican > tax > >> reform should involve sharp reductions in tax rates for everyone, in > return > >> for eliminating tax loopholes for special interest, crony capitalists. > >> > >> A good model for that are the tax reform proposals developed by House > >> Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, already included in his budget > >> proposals approved by the full House. For personal, individual income > taxes, > >> those proposals involve a 10 percent tax rate for annual incomes below > >> $100,000, and a 25 percent tax rate for incomes above that. For > corporate > >> taxes, the top federal tax rate would be reduced to 25 percent as well. > >> > >> Republicans should avoid the trap of promising that such reform would be > >> revenue neutral, shifting the debate to that rather than the impact on > >> growth. Their proposals should involve a net tax cut on a static revenue > >> estimating basis (not taking into account the pro-growth effects), and > a net > >> revenue gain on a dynamic basis, considering the pro-growth effects. > >> > >> Another pro-growth measure would be to repeal and replace Obamacare with > >> the Patient Power health policy reforms proposed by free market health > >> policy expert John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy > >> Analysis in Dallas. Those reforms would assure universal health care for > >> all, with no individual mandate, no employer mandate, and a sharp net > cut in > >> taxes, spending, and cost-increasing regulatory burdens. > >> > >> Those reforms would be based on a universal health insurance tax credit > of > >> roughly $2,500 per person, $8,000 per family, that every citizen could > use > >> to help purchase the private health insurance of their choice. For > those who > >> nevertheless still don’t choose to buy coverage with the credit, the > >> unused funds would be sent in federal block grants to clinics and > hospitals > >> that serve the indigent. For those who get too sick while uninsured, > perhaps > >> with cancer or heart disease, to then buy private health insurance for > the > >> first time, the tax credit can be used to buy coverage from a > state-based > >> uninsurable risk pool, or from Medicaid, which would assure coverage for > >> pre-existing conditions in any event. Medicaid should also be turned > over to > >> the states for further reform, with block grants as in the enormously > >> successful, 1996 welfare reforms. That has also been endorsed by > Ryan’s > >> Republican budgets, and by the 2012 Romney/Ryan ticket. CBO estimates > that > >> would save $1 to $2 trillion in the first 10 years alone. > >> > >> Some conservative analysts, and Republican health policy staffers, have > >> been too pessimistic about the prospects for such reforms. They have > >> succumbed to the fundamental mistake that under any market > >> repeal-and-replace plan like the Goodman Patient Power plan, tens of > >> millions of Americans will necessarily lose the health insurance plan > they > >> now have under Obamacare, doing to them what Obamacare just did to > millions > >> of Americans who were falsely told by President Obama that under > Obamacare, > >> if they liked their health plan, they could keep it. > >> > >> The egregious error here is that since there is no mandate at all in the > >> Patient Power market alternative to Obamacare, not a single health > policy > >> insurance plan in the entire country would be invalidated by repeal and > >> replacement of Obamacare by the Patient Power market plan. Under that > market > >> plan, each individual chooses the health plan he will buy with the > universal > >> health insurance tax credit. The federal government does not specify > what > >> health plan anyone has to buy. So the Patient Power market reforms > would not > >> require the cancellation or invalidation, of any health insurance plans. > >> Anyone who likes the health plan he has under Obamacare can simply use > the > >> tax credit to help pay for that one. The exact number of health > insurance > >> plans in the entire country invalidated if Obamacare is repealed and > >> replaced by Goodman’s Patient Power market plan would be precisely > 0.00, > >> not 35 million as some analysts have misled their more credulous > readers to > >> believe. > >> > >> With no employer mandate in the Patient Power plan, the effects of > >> Obamacare in destroying jobs and full time employment are eliminated. > With > >> no individual mandate and no guaranteed issue or community rating > >> regulation, the primary effects of Obamacare in increasing health costs > are > >> eliminated as well. The elimination of increased taxes and spending > under > >> Obamacare would be powerfully pro-growth as well. > >> > >> Other important pro-growth reforms for Republicans to support would > >> include a federal balanced budget amendment, fundamental reform of the > Fed > >> and monetary policy, possibly including a restored link to gold and > other > >> precious metals to at least guide monetary policy, comprehensive welfare > >> reform based on work for the able bodied instead of guaranteed > handouts, and > >> personal savings, investment. and insurance accounts for Social > Security and > >> Medicare (instead of suicidal cuts in those highly sensitive programs). > >> > >> Such reforms would involve a dramatic reduction in government spending > and > >> taxes over a generation, and restore booming, world leading, traditional > >> American economic growth and prosperity, meaning millions of more jobs, > >> higher wages and incomes for working families, and more real equality > as a > >> result. > >> > >> The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization > >> responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training > >> aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your > >> contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each > donor > >> receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes. > >> > >> > >> Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved. > >> > >> Source URL: http://spectator.org/articles/59065/light-end-tunnel > >> > >>  > >> > >> > >> __._,_.___ > >> > >> > >> Visit Your Group New Members 2 • > >> > >> -- > >> -- > >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > >> > >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > >> > >> --- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > >> "PoliticalForum" group. > >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an > >> email to [email protected]. > >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > -- > > -- > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > > > --- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "PoliticalForum" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to [email protected]. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
