Currently we understand we are at about 25 Percent of Gross Domestic Product now, as a result of Obama Administration expenditures, an increase just in the first part of Obama’s administration of a 5% increase over 2008. This does not include healthcare reform that will add substantially $1.4 Trillion per annum, and the calculation will probably move the 25% mentioned in the below article upwards toward 35% -to- 40% of GDP. This would be very unhealthy by many economic standards. It would put the US in a position never before realized and we would join with other socialistic countries and third world countries. The poor countries of the world often depended upon world wide services having been in part funded by the US through foreign aid. We have been the Daddy so to speak for the economic engines of the free world, but this will end abruptly and jarringly in the near future with the current and anticipated Obama expenditures. The US state budgets will increasingly be well underfunded in the US, and will have to be abruptly downsized immediately, services curtailed and many institutions will fail. While we have been living large by world standards, we will have to readjust our living standards dramatically downward, and then the issues will finally hit the general masses of citizens in America as to the cost of going socialistic under the populist leadership of Barack Obama while he goes forward unchecked with the two houses of Congress rubber stamping his every move.
Today reports from Donna Shalala, Clinton’s prior HHS Secretary, was interviewed this morning on CNN, when you listened carefully, she stated twice that much has to be discovered yet in how Obama’s plan for single payer healthcare nationally will be funded, but she indicated that his advisors will probably have to institute new taxes on the wealthy, and on middle class citizens based upon their healthcare utilization, and the Obama administration will simply have to work out the funding problems as they build the system. In other words Obama has no real way of paying for this system other than to lower living standards for each citizen of this country in order to obtain his dream and the dream of the liberal extremists to get to where they want to be. He is now quietly developing a VAT tax, that in earlier years was a kind of alternative to the IRS system in place now, but Obama is not talking about eliminated the IRS tax system, his Value Added Tax system would be on top of the existing national tax or IRS tax. This would be a 10% tax on raw materials, another 10% tax on the manufacturing process or services delivery like health care, and then we might have 80% of the new single payer healthcare system paid for. In other words, the Obama healthcare system on top of existing increased debt we now have may put us behind many third world countries and this is totally unacceptable. The below article however tells the story of how this might actually happen as a slight of hand due to the enormous popularity enjoyed by Obama by the public due to the fawning liberal press that is predominant today. The press is shaping the debate on behalf of Obama. Conservative press cannot even begin to get the message across to the vast majority of citizens, and we see our free enterprise system in jeopardy as a result. The question then is how do we educate the average citizens about the pending perils that are before us?
Jim the Conservative
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN07272586 Opposition to Obama article link
http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/ Large body of material on Obama’s plans for healthcare reform by Robert Laszewski
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/business/global/21yen.html Japan’s contraction at 15.2% past year, US to follow this kind of path if our spending keep increasing
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aj5HHIKfogR8&refer=worldwide Obama’s totally re-worked ideas as of yesterday, mandates to business to insure
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090606/D98L67500.html Is the liberal spending party backfiring?
———
Obama infatuation not healthy for country or policies
BY ROBERT J. SAMUELSON
June 08, 2009
Washington Post Writers Group
The Obama infatuation is the great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment; but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America.
Our political system works best when a president faces checks on his power. But the main checks on Obama are modest. They come from congressional Democrats, who largely share his goals if not always his means. The leaderless and confused Republicans don’t provide effective opposition. And the press – on domestic, if not foreign, policy – has so far largely abdicated its role as skeptical observer.
Obama has inspired a collective fawning. What started in the campaign (the chief victim was Hillary Clinton, not John McCain) has continued, as a study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism shows. It concludes: “President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House.”
The study examined 1,261 stores by The Washington Post, The New York Times, ABC, CBS and NBC, Newsweek magazine and the NewsHour on PBS.
Favorable stories (42 percent) were double the unfavorable (20 percent), while the rest were “neutral” or “mixed.” Obama’s treatment contrasts sharply with coverage in the first two months of the presidencies of Bush (22 percent of stories favorable) and Clinton (27 percent).
Unlike Bush and Clinton, Obama received favorable coverage in both news columns and opinion pages. The nature of stories also changed. “Roughly twice as much of the coverage of Obama (44 percent) has concerned his personal and leadership qualities than was the case for Bush (22 percent) or Clinton (26 percent),” the report said. “Less of the coverage, meanwhile, has focused on his policy agenda.”
When Pew broadened the analysis to 49 outlets – cable channels, news
Web sites, morning news shows, more newspapers and National Public Radio – the results were similar, despite some outliers. No surprise: MSNBC was favorable, Fox was not. Another study, released by the Center for Media and
Public Affairs at George Mason University, reached parallel conclusions.
The infatuation matters because Obama’s ambitions are so grand. He wants to expand health care subsidies, tightly control energy use and overhaul immigration. He envisions the greatest growth of government since Lyndon Johnson. The Congressional Budget Office estimates federal spending in 2019 at nearly 25 percent of the economy (gross domestic product).
That’s well up from the 21 percent in 2008, and far above the post-World
War II average; it would also occur before many baby boomers retire.
Are his proposals practical, even if desirable? Maybe they’re neither? What might be unintended consequences? All “reforms” do not succeed; some cause more problems than they solve. Johnson’s economic policies, inherited from Kennedy, proved disastrous; they led to the 1970s’ “stagflation.” The “war on poverty” failed. The press should not be hostile; but it ought to be skeptical.
Mostly, it isn’t. The idea of a “critical” Obama story is a tactical conflict with congressional Democrats or criticism from an important constituency. Larger issues are minimized, despite ample grounds for skepticism.
Obama’s rhetoric brims with inconsistencies. In the campaign, he claimed he would de-emphasize partisanship – and also enact a highly-partisan agenda; both couldn’t be true. He got a pass. Now, he claims he will control health care spending even though he proposes more government spending. He promotes “fiscal responsibility” when projections show huge and continuous budget deficits. Journalists seem to take his pronouncements at face value even when many are two-faced.
The cause of this acquiescence isn’t clear. The press sometimes follows opinion polls; popular presidents get good coverage, and Obama is enormously popular. By Pew, his job performance rating is 63 percent. But because favorable coverage began in the campaign, this explanation is at best partial.
Perhaps the preoccupation with the present economic crisis has diverted attention from the long-term implications of other policies. But the deeper explanation may be as straightforward as this: most journalists like Obama; they admire his command of language; he’s a relief after Bush; they agree with his agenda (so it never occurs to them to question basic premises); and they don’t want to see the first African-American president fail.
Whatever, a great edifice of government may arise on the narrow foundation of Obama’s personal popularity. Another Pew survey shows that since the election both self-identified Republicans and Democrats have declined. “Independents” have increased, and “there has been no consistent movement away from conservatism, nor a shift toward liberalism.”
The press has become Obama’s silent ally and seems in a state of denial. But the story goes untold: Unsurprisingly, the study of all the favorable coverage received little coverage.
