Hey big spender, Bernie

The beauty, or should I say lie, of a Democrat plan. Or is it really a socialist plan? In any case it is.

Bernie Sanders is again touting his jobs plan as the cure for unemployment problems, particularly younger people. But it is not a jobs plan at all, its a big-spending plan, by big government of course. Bloomberg news: 5.5 billion to employ 1 million young people.

[June]The legislation, introduced by Michigan Representative John Conyers, would create a $5.5 billion fund, $4 billion earmarked for the employment of people between 16 and 24, $1.5 billion for job training grants. There are no pay-fors. It would ask a Congress that is dead-set against “big government” to employ people, with the help of big government.

Bernster already received ringing praise and an endorsement on it from Robert Reich. Birds of the feather. Reich said it is a perfect time for this spending plan to take advantage of low borrowing rates. Yea, that’s the ticket.

Chris Hayes(MSNBC) called this one of the longest post-war economic expansions ever recorded. (stop laughing people) Sander’ plan, “direct 200 bln dollars a year for 5 years” on infrastructure spending, “we got a multiplier effect.”(remember Obama’s spending on those “shovel-ready” jobs — shoveling money. What multiplied was our debt)

The economy: “It’s growing…at this point one of the most enduring post-war expansions we have ever seen,” said Hayes.

Reich: “I tell you why I think its a very good idea and a very important idea: number one, because we can borrow at very,very low interest rates right now. Number two, you still have a lot of people who are not only out of work,…. Number three, you have a crumbling infrastructure. You have roads and bridges, and pipes, and rapid transit systems that are all falling apart [sort of like Hillary Clinton’s campaign.] all over America. Put those three together and it’s logical this kind of plan is necessary.

“I think she’d make an excellent president. … and in terms of policies, he [Bernie] is very much articulating the kind of things that are needed in this country. I mean I think he is allowing, because he is, ah, kind of creating territory for Hillary to move into. He is allowing Hillary, the Democratic candidate, I think, whoever that is, to be a little bit more bolder than otherwise. But this country, right now, really needs boldness.”

So just to be clear, we aren’t talking about jobs really at all but spending — big-government spending. It’s the answer to everything. “Spending, got some?”

No surprise at what Bernie Sanders is actually doing. He’s just laying out the socialist Left flank for Hillary, er so she doesn’t have to.(all those people at rallies, haha) When the time comes, it all merges to Hillary Clinton. Sanders is only a bold, big-spending placeholder.

More side effects of ObamaCare

New insurance fee in health overhaul law likely to hit consumers

(AP)Your medical plan is facing an unexpected expense, so you probably are, too. It’s a new, $63-per-head fee to cushion the cost of covering people with pre-existing conditions under President Obama’s health care overhaul.

The charge, buried in a recent regulation, works out to tens of millions of dollars for the largest companies, employers say. Most of that is likely to be passed on to workers

/…
Most of the money will go into a fund administered by the Health and Human Services Department. It will be used to cushion health insurance companies from the initial hard-to-predict costs of covering uninsured people with medical problems. Under the law, insurers will be forbidden from turning away the sick as of Jan. 1, 2014.

Read more:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/10/new-insurance-fee-in-health-overhaul-law-likely-to-hit-consumers/

Fees, fees, and more fees

ObamaCare is not a solution, it is only a symptom of the disease.

I recently talked to a guy who runs a small arts business. Immediately he mentioned taxes and how it is almost impossile to stay in business. He wondered about all the places that get grants and assistance from either state or federal government. He was not on the special list, not that he wanted anything. He just wanted the deck not to be staked against him. He has around a dozen employees, and with that no one wants to know him or cares. We should tell Obama that these are the people and businesses that are on their own, when he spews the “you are on your own” rhetoric.

Why are those people or businesses being demonized, penalized, and targeted by unions as well?

If you are a big company, there are enticements to attract and keep you in the area. But for the little guy, persona non grata. With those taxes which at least locally go up every year, one eventually asks if it is wort it? They expect you to make it up on your fees from customers, though sometimes that just is not possible or practical. You are penalized for being an employer. Your success is ridiculed.

And these are the folks that Obama says “you didn’t build that”. It seems to me anyone struggling that hard to stay in business, with the odds against them, deserves to say they built it. But can they keep it? That is the real question. The signal sent from the local to the Federal government is “we really could not care less”. However, lots of these benefit the community, not just its coffers. They would be missed — argueably as much as the big guys — if they closed. The payrolls to them are just as important.

I was recently reading the history of a small town. It was founded by business. A couple large companies actually founded and put the town on the map. They paid for and built the origninal roads. They built the schools and hospital. And they atracted more people. They built the much ballyhooed “infrastructure”. Who else was going to do it? These days people have the idea government always comes first, and without it nothing could happen. (ala Obama and Warren) Look at some of history of those towns.

Today the same government holds the life and death of your endeavor over your head. If you are big, they will talk to you. If you are small, you are just a whipping post and more fodder for its schemes. Today, Obama and his ilk have no conception about that America. They render it obsolete and now want to erase it from history…and our memory.

The art of the stimulus

Or is it stimuli?


I cannot figure out why more isn’t said lately on the stimulus and where it went. (or didn’t go as the case may be.) But its clear that Libs, more quietly now, are pushing for more stimulus. (stimulus is like fish food to Libs) In their reasoning they suggest infrastructure is in need of repair. How about that infrastructure? Wasn’t the first one sold to us under the guise of infrastructure, or all those shovel-ready projects? Even Obama had a chuckle over it saying “it turned out shovel-ready was not too shovel-ready.” – disengenuously. He wasn’t too surprised.

In the stimulus package, just 1/3rd was originally scheduled for infrastructure. But within that were funds for records infrastructure etc. But of that third, only a small part of it was actually for roads and bridges or repairs. Sure all the talk was about that and how bad it was needed. But only around 6% of stimulus funds went to infrastructure like roads and bridges. There is a phrase for that; it’s called the old bait and switch. So where did money go?

Well, the long list contains a lot of state aid and funds which went to public employees of all kinds. They got stimulated. The roads and bridges, not so much. It went into that giant cesspool of all those public sector jobs. it was supposedly saving, which was only temporary. (The money had to stop sometime.) In the meantime, it bought the support…votes in political speak, of public employees and unions. You want to know where the money for infrastructure went? Look to the public payrolls. But that is old news now. Why isn’t it important anymore? And remember Joe Biden was put in charge to play cop and judge?

What gets me is how often talk comes up now on infrastructure spending and the dire need it. Government has issued reports rating our roads and bridges infrastructure a ‘D’. And we just spent 800 billion dollars with a 6% token to it. At that rate how much more “infrastructure” spending would we have to do to get a sizeable amount (or percentage) of the total to go to roads and bridges? Its estimated we need to spend 2.5 trillion on it. Its scary to think how much miscellaneous money would also have to be spent(wated), to see 2.5T go toward it? But its in the stratosphere, for sure. (maybe 4 trillion plus, who knows?)

Still they say we have to spend …. And soon it will be “no time to waste”… “we can’t wait!” That’s my prediction. It should infuriate every American to be told they were hot on that cause, with borrowed money and then, “oops, I guess not”. So infrastructure can wait. Union jobs could not. The public sector needed money, as it turned out. But “it turns out shovel-ready were not so shovel-ready”

Yet it does get worse, if that was possible. Just recently when Obama was asked about the economy, he said “the private sector is doing fine”. In honing down his comments, he revealed the problems are in the public sector. We are loosing jobs in the public sector, he said. Well, dang, all that money going into public coffers and now he says there is a big problem with the public sector and jobs. (some of his favorite folks, er voters)

Hence, back to the original debate over their desire for more stimulus spending – whatever they want to call it now. And it is election season so the votes need to be purchased. I can almost smell another emergency coming on. Any emergency will do. One they can use for a vehicle. States are strapped, so they will be looking for any avenue to get to Spendville. And once again maybe a fresh mention to “roads and bridges”, ha ha, but it would go to the public sector and/or employees.

Of course that is just my stab in the dark guess while they must be scheming up something. ‘We must never loose those public sector jobs’. As much stimulus spending as it was, all that prior spending did was buy more time – which happens to be very, very expensive in Washington.

A strange thing happened weeks ago, Obama brought up his favorite talking point about roads, bridges and infrastructure in his “you didn’t build that” debut. He cleverly infused it into his campaign stump speech. Then again in his convention speech. Does anyone think it was incidental or unintentional? You may want to look at the second article under reference, for background, if you do. What with all that money Obama is “saving”.

I will use the money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work rebuilding roads and bridges and schools and runways.

Because after two wars that have cost us thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars, it’s time to do some nation- building right here at home.

Funny, his way of “nation building” so far is to tear America apart and down. I can’t stomach any more of his “nation building”. If Clinton was building “the bridge to the 21st century”, Obama is building the bridge to the ash heap. ‘Slumming down America’. There’s a bumper slogan for Biden.

Reference: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-final-verdict-on-the-2009-stimulus-a-failure/
Description of the deliberative stimulus, not too conservative but informative
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/09/obamas-infrastructure-stimulus-designed.html