No wonder he thinks this will work
After reading this American Thinker piece on the Obama finances it's abundantly clear why Obama thinks his financial shell game with our money and our children's earning power will work. He's lived on getting Peter to pay Paul and it worked for him so why not for the rest of us? He's got a bigger house. He's got a better job. He's set for life.
'But the public record of their [Obama family] spending shows that they had to regularly take out lines of credit to pay their bills. As reported during the campaign, Michelle Obama complained in hard hit Ohio:
I know we’re spending — I added it up for the first time — we spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, we’re spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements and so on and so forth,”The Obamas were living beyond their means for several years according to an examination of their tax records and their mortgage documents.'
I remember her astonishing figure for extracurricular activities. I had not noticed the 'for the first time' part. For the FIRST time?? Not only has the man never held a real job or run a successful business---they've apparently never actually created a family budget--and now he's in charge of all of our budgets.
It's just Monopoly money to him. He's taking payday loans to the extreme. America has rewarded his poor stewardship of family finances by giving him the biggest get out of jail free card ever. "He's to big to fail" now. And he's got enough power and influence to peddle that patrons will be ready and willing to continue to supply him with more Monopoly money for years to come.
Wednesday the National Taxday Tea Parties will be held. We have got to make enough noise to get Obama and his cohorts in Congress to realize we have had enough and they need to halt right where they are and stop spending OUR money, OUR futures and diminishing OUR rights.
6 comments:
Basically all of the factual claims in this post are either incorrect or, at best, highly misleading.
But that's not important. What's important is that the frame of reference you're using to draw your conclusions from is terribly, terribly wrong.
Look: households and governments are not the same. They're not. This is something that people writing about political economy realized before we got to the "A.D." part of the calendar, and that was long before the advent of the modern banking system and international credit.
I assume from all your talk about family budgets that the finances of your own household are very well-run. That's great, but it gives you absolutely no information about the wisdom of deficit spending or bank bailouts or whatever else have you.
These are issues that economists spend their whole lives poring over. Many of the most respected of these economists are advisors to President Obama, and his views and policies are not, by all accounts, dramatically out of joint with their recommendations.
Certainly, there are economists whose views conflict with his and with those advisors'. But there's a vast difference between legitimately disputing an economic claim and making the kinds of goofy, household analogy claims that you're making here.
It's almost certain that neither of us knows enough about macroeconomics to have truly informed views on these issues. That's inevitable, when we're dealing with such expansive, financial questions - average citizens just can't keep up with all the factors involved.
But when your response to this is to pretend that the issues aren't complex, and that you can reduce everything to what mortgages and credit Barack Obama took out on his home?
I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. It's silly and intellectually indefensible. And, with matters this serious, frankly, it's the sort of thing that any citizen of a functioning democracy should be deathly ashamed of.
Some might argue that the editor of "the American Thinker," who describes his experiences as an "academic" and a "consultant," has never had an actual job in the real world. I would call practicing law more real-world than anything this self-described "American Thinker" has done. So why source something published by a guy who hasn't actually worked to charge that our President, Barack Hussein Obama, hasn't actually worked?
I knew I could count on our resident Obama apologist, Obama neighbor and Chicago college student to comment.
Apparently, commenting on the flawed stimulus program and outrageous Congressional spending is above my pay grade in the eyes of some. Well, it's not. As long as he's taking money from MY family--I'll be commenting and objecting.
What I know about debt is very simple and I understand hard for elitists to wrap their uber intelligence around but know this as surely as you know the sun rises or that gravity is:
The borrower is servant to the lender.
I do NOT want to be sold into economic slavery to anyone, let alone the Chinese or the Saudi's. I will fight to keep my children and grandchildren from being so shackled. How ironic is it that the first black president who considers himself to be of the Abraham Lincoln mold would return America to slavery?
Well-said, Kay.
As for NSAllen, I ask a rhetorical question or two.
Why is it that all apologists for President Obama's budget frame it in mystical terms? Ooh it's so complicated and fuzzy you'll never understand it.
I love how you bring up the fact that nationstates have been running this model for millinea. Yes. They have. It's also been the sole or major contributing cause to the decline in power and status for every nationstate that's tried it. From the Roman empire to the British empire, we only have to glance at a history book to see how mortgaging the future cost them their everything.
Not bad yourself, Kat. Where are all those successful and power nations that we should be financially emulating?
NSA,
Talk about ridiculous; speak for yourself . . . I can understand when someone (gov't or family) assumes too much debt.
Kay's post is about managing one's finances, not "balancing a budget." No, they're not the same thing, but there's a LOT of crossover.
You and CTM are amazing: "that analogy is ridiculous, silly, intellectually indefensible, shameful," "a journalist can't be trusted to report on Obama's personal finances . . . because he's never not been a journalist! . . . or something." Give me a break.
Great parallel, Kay.
Post a Comment