Missouri Shooters Alliance
Obama's State of the Union speech
January 25, 2012
This campaign speech last night was supposed to be the “bookend” to Obama’s class warfare speech he made in Osawatomie, Kansas last year. In that speech, Obama talked about the need for “fairness” fifteen times. Last night, he paired it back to only six mentions of the need for “fairness” or millionaires to pay their “fair share.” Obammus DID managed to mention the other F-word once: freedom. Someone also snuck the word liberty – once – into the speech. Must have been a mistake No mention of personal responsibility, but only the responsibility of rich people to pay their fair share.
We also have the “I” word. Obama used that one 45 times. And some people seem to have a problem with people telling them what they “should” and “shouldn’t” do. That word showed up 28 times.
But let’s go through some of the more absurd assertions in Obama’s campaign speech:
Obama claims: “In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs.”
The truth: Yes, 3 million new jobs were created. But during the same period 5 million jobs were lost. Even a government school student can do this math. That means a net loss of 2 million jobs. The fact is that there are fewer Americans working today than there were when Obama took office. Our labor force has shrunk from a participation rate of 64.6% to 64% in just two years. In fact, if the same number of Americans were looking for jobs today as were in 2007, our unemployment rate would be closer to 11%. And that doesn’t even take into account the number of Americans who are underemployed at the moment.
At one time an effective line to be used on someone from the moocher class demonizing the rich was: “Well, then why don’t you go get a job from a poor person when you decide to actually start looking?” Now the response is “I don’t need to. The government is supposed to get me a job.”
Obama says: “Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and everyone knows it. So let's change it.”
The problem: Obama is absolutely right. Our corporate tax rate is the highest among industrialized nations. Notice, though, that Obama’s solution doesn’t include lowering that rate! Duhhhhhh! Instead of lowering tax rates at home to perhaps attract foreign investment in America, Obama’s solution is to punish the people who are already here. He wants to erect an economic Berlin Wall --- not as much to keep other businesses out, but to keep American businesses locked in. If you keep these jobs here you’ll have to pay our absurdly high corporate income tax rates. If you try to move your manufacturing processes overseas we’ll punish you with some more confiscatory tax rates. That’s the way to create jobs in America.
Let me make this absolutely clear: The jobs belong to the businesses .. not to Obama ... not to the workers .. not to the government. I’m sure many of them would ideally like to create jobs in America, but until we get serious about tax reform (and not just trimming around the edges with some incentives), those jobs will be created wherever the company feels is best and that is absolutely their prerogative.
Obama says: “At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced States to lay off thousands of teachers.”
The problem: Despite what the Democrats may claim, we actually have more teachers in the classrooms than ever before. The number of teachers has increased at a faster pace compared to student enrollment. Does that really make any sense? From 1971 to 1984, the number of students in government school actually declined by 15%, while the number of teachers increased by 7%. In 1955, the number of students per teacher was at 26.9. By 2010, that figure has been lowered to 15.6 students per teacher. It seems that the higher the student-teacher ratio the worse our system works. Now I would maintain that the REAL problem is the bloated number of administrators, but that doesn’t make as sexy of an applause line as teachers getting fired.
Obama says: “Higher education can't be a luxury — it's an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.”
The problem: Yet another entitlement to add to the growing list of things that libs and proggies believe they should receive by virtue of the fact that they exist and they want it. Not everyone needs to go to college. Some of our most successful entrepreneurs, in fact, bailed out after high school to pursue their dreams.
Obama claims: “I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That's why my Administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. That's why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office.”
The truth: Obama gets this one half right. You can read the fact checking here from Poli-fact on the number of boots on the ground at the border. But where Obama gets it wrong is that there aren’t fewer illegals coming to this country because of these agents … the illegals aren’t coming because our economy is in the crapper! The reason they were coming illegally in the first place is because of the giant magnet of American economic opportunity. Thanks to Obammus, we aren’t worried about opportunity. We are now worried on equality. Let’s see how far THAT gets us.
Obama claims: “Right now, American oil production is the highest that it's been in eight years.”
The truth: What Obama doesn’t tell you is that this has nothing to do with his administration or his policies. In fact, oil production on federal land is DOWN by 40%. Oil production is high because of those evil, private oil companies increasing production on PRIVATE, not government lands. These private lands are not subject to the same level of government regulation as are federal lands. The lesson here is pretty easy to comprehend. More government, less production. Less government, more production. How about another duhhhhhhh.
Obama claims: “In fact, I've approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his.”
The truth: It’s not the number of regulations, it’s the regulations themselves .. the oppressiveness and affect on private business. According to the Heritage Foundation: “During its first 26 months—from taking office to mid-FY 2011—the Obama Administration has imposed 75 new major regulations with reported costs to the private sector exceeding $40 billion. During the same period, six major rulemaking proceedings reduced regulatory burdens by an estimated $1.5 billion, still leaving a net increase of more than $38 billion … No other President has burdened businesses and individuals with a higher number and larger cost of regulations in a comparable time period.”
Obama claims: “I will not go back to the days when Wall Street was allowed to play by its own set of rules.”
The truth: Wall Street has never been able to play by its own set of rules. This is a line that liberals use in order to divert attention from the real culprit: the federal government. And unfortunately, the Obama administration hasn’t done anything to make it better. The structural problems from 2008 have only been compounded and are now worse under Dodd-Frank. Meanwhile, don’t bother expounding on the fact that it was Democrats who blocked reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the entities responsible for the housing collapse and the ensuing financial crisis.
Obama claims: “Right now, we're poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.”
The truth: Don’t you just love that liberals view the money that you’ve earned as money that THEY are spending? The official government phrase is “tax expenditures.” The concept is that you belong to the government, and therefore the money that you earn belongs to the government. Money that you earn that remains in your pocket is money “spent” by the government. Obama is tired of “spending” all this money on you.
Obama claims: “Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else — like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we're serious about paying down our debt, we can't do both.”
This is not, and never should be, an either/or scenario. The fact is
that increasing taxes on the rich … or in prog-talk that’s “letting tax
cuts expire for wealthy Americans … is no way to pay down our debt. Our
government is spending too much, that’s the problem! The truth is that
the only way for the government to solve its fiscal issues with revenue
would be to confiscate every single dollar from every single American making $200,000 or more per year.
Taxing the nation’s millionaires at 50% – even eliminating loopholes
and deductions – would only reduce the deficit by 8% and the national
debt by 1%.
|Return to the WMSA Home Page|
Copyright © 1997-2008
Western Missouri Shooters Alliance. All rights reserved, but all you
have to do is ask.
|Please send suggestions, corrections, and comments to the Webmaster|
|Hosted by Suncoast Networks.|
|Last update: 26 January 2012