Obama Has Deep Pockets (Yours!)

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

No House Limit

“You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?  The answer is yes, that’s what I’m telling you.” – Joe Biden

“We’d all like to vote for the best man, but he’s never a candidate.” – Frank McKinney ‘Kin’ Hubbard

“When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I’m beginning to believe it.” — Clarence Darrow

“In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant.” – Charles de Gaulle

The biggest spender in the history of history, flush with a brand new letter of credit courtesy of John Boehner and company, wants to go on another spree:

How is President Obama going to stanch the bleeding of red ink and get us on a path of fiscal solvency?

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

BY ADDING ANOTHER $56 BILLION IN SPENDING.

The president next month will release a political document dressed up as a budget calling for an additional $56 billion for programs in areas such as education, manufacturing and job training. (White House Dossier)

The Obama PlanPeople with an addiction like this are usually forced into a 12-step program, not installed in the Oval Office.More government programs?  That’s like hoping for more incurable diseases, the difference being that the diseases might someday be eliminated.

Bad laws are like flatulence.  The stench remains long after the need has passed.  In New Jersey for example, it’s illegal to delay or detain a homing pigeon.  In Washington, it’s a felony to harass a Bigfoot.  In Champaigne, Illinois, it’s against the law to pee in your neighbor’s mouth.  In Massachusetts, it’s illegal to go to bed without first taking a bath.  In the Empire State, jumping off a building is a crime punishable by death.  In Texas, it’s a felony to own more than six dildos.  And in Hawaii, it’s not permitted to place coins in your ears — a measure that may have been taken in order to prevent a future president from bankrupting the state.

What this country needs is not more laws; it’s fewer lawmakers.

Related articles

PTG

Original Post:  Be Sure You’re Right, Then Go Ahead

Share

Hostess Workers Fire Themselves: Strike Causes Three Bakeries to Close

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Earlier this year, we covered that Hostess, the iconic brand that makes such treats as Twinkies, was going bankrupt.  At the top of the list of causes was  high labor costs.  The company had stated that if the union went on strike, the company would be liquidated.  But, when the company made an offer to save the company, the workers decided that they didn’t want their jobs after all.  The Gateway Pundit has more…

Over 600 workers will no longer have a job.
Nice work bakers’ union.

St. Louis Today
 reported:

Hostess Brands permanently closed three bakeries Monday, including a plant in St. Louis where 365 jobs were cut, in response to a bakers’ union strike that started Friday.

The bankrupt maker of Twinkies and Wonder bread said it’s trying to avert liquidating the entire company, and it shuttered three plants that were no longer able to produce and deliver products because of picket lines. The other plant closures are in Seattle and Cincinnati, where a combined 262 jobs were cut.

“We deeply regret this decision, but we have repeatedly explained that we will close facilities that are no longer able to produce and deliver products because of a work stoppage — and that we will close the entire company if widespread strikes cripple our business,” Hostess CEO Gregory Rayburn said in a statement.

Wholesale baker Hostess Brands, which is based in Irving, Texas, filed for bankruptcy in January and has fought with labor groups over contract changes throughout the year.

Thousands of members of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union went on strike beginning on Friday at plants across the country, including Oakland, Calif.; Seattle; and Orlando, Fla. The union represents about 5,680 of Hostess’ 18,300 employees.

On Monday morning, more than two dozen Hostess workers stood on a sidewalk outside the St. Louis bakery on North Broadway, refusing to cross the picket line set by striking bakers’ union members from Columbus, Ind. Some of Hostess’ St. Louis employees said they had worked at the plant that makes Hostess cakes and Nature’s Pride and Wonder breads for decades but were honoring the picket line to protest cuts to their salaries and other benefits.

The St. Louis Bakers Union Local 4 represents 200 employees at the plant at 6301 North Broadway.

So, when choosing between having a job, and not having a job, the union men chose to be unemployed?  That seems to be the logic-or lack thereof.

Share

Obama’s Second Term EPA to Destroy Coal Industry

Share

Apparently, the Obama Administration is holding back on announcing new regulations, especially from the EPA.  It would seem that the Administration does not want prospective voters knowing what the EPA will be up to.  However, Freedom Works has some relevant information…

First, an October report from Republican Sen. James Inhofe indicated that the EPA specifically “punted” on numerous regulations in an attempt to “earn votes” for a second term.  

Then, the administration illegally failed to meet a deadline for releasing regulatory plans for the coming year, a move which prompted Inhofe to release the following statement:

“President Obama is refusing to comply with the law that requires him to publish forthcoming regulations because he doesn’t want the American public to know the terrible cost of the regulatory barrage he plans to unleash in a second term.”

The actual cutback in October regulations and subsequent plans in November bear this out.  We’ve seen an unprecedented number of ‘economically significant’ regulations being approved by the Obama administration last month.  Reports indicate that there were only 4 regulations approved during October, while Obama has averaged over 40 such regulations on average over his term.

Inhofe warns that 2013 will be much different – wide-sweeping regulations will be coming from the White House … after the election.  And it won’t be a pretty scene for the jobs scene in coal country:

The Oklahoma senator and ranking Republican on the chamber’s Committee on Environment and Public Works has released a report stating that when the agency approves the roughly one dozen regulations next year in 2013, they will “spell doom” for jobs and economic growth… ‘These rules taken together will inevitably result in the elimination of millions of American jobs, drive up the price of gas at the pump even more, impose construction bans on local communities and essentially shut down American oil, natural gas and coal production.’”

New EPA regulations will facilitate the closing of up to 69,000 megawatts of coal-fueled electric generation, and will sever up to 887,000 jobs per year. Worse according to the report, peak years could see job losses anywhere between 700,000 and a staggering 2.2 million.

That’s what Obama promised.  He promised to bankrupt coal, and the new regulations, that won’t be released unless/until Obama wins will do exactly that.  But, how many people working in the emergy/coal sector will go out and vote for the man who will put them out of work?

Share

2012 Turning Into Battle Between Successful American and Bankrupt European models?

Share

Some of you probably don’t enjoy the ‘Obama everyday’ approach that some blogs have adopted, and I have also struggled with this, but the truth of the matter is that this Presidential campaign is increasingly becoming a story between two opposing forces and a good storyteller (me) should always focus on the main characters in that battle.

The battle lines have been drawn up.

On one side is President Barack Obama, who has taken the lead in the new-look Democratic Party and is being followed by assorted people like Senator Stabenow and Congresswomen Nancy Pelosi. He has declared war on ‘the rich’- those who are successful and make money or those who own small businesses or those who own family farms- and has stated that the purpose of the state is to redistribute wealth to those who he favors, whether they be union bosses or green investors or Hollywood elite. Democrats reluctantly follow him, wary of his radical nature and tired of his continual divisive campaigning, but he does control the political power right now in our nation- as he tweeted recently, he currently fills the chair in the White House and is going to do everything in his power to keep filling it. This new-version Democratic Party looks to Europe for inspiration on a range of policy issues, from welfare to healthcare, and believes that the entitlement/welfare state needs to be increased in these difficult times even if there is no money to pay for this sort of reckless expansion.

I focus mainly on President Obama because he is the main character, but in reality he represents a bigger group of people and a timeless desire- he is the face of those who wish to empower political elites to control others, control their wealth and prosperity, and direct their lives. His sort has been around forever, and for most of human history his sort has been in political control, and around most of the globe his sort is in control today. Even if President Obama is defeated in 2012, the struggle will continue, although the face of it will surely change as Obama rides off into the sunset of taxpayer-paid retirement, golf, and expensive speeches of a bitter and resentful sort.

On the other side apparently is the GOP nominee for President Mitt Romney, who has emerged from a spirited round of debates about the future of our nation to win the nomination for his party and be its standard bearer in 2012. Romney picked Paul Ryan as his VP and surrounded himself with convention speakers like Congressman Marco Rubio and Governor Susana Martinez. At the convention we heard him double-down on important themes like ‘we did build that’ and ‘we can do better’ and ‘we believe in America’, promising to support small businesses, the middle class, manufacturing, and energy producers with less regulations and lower taxes. He believes that the purpose of the state is to protect peoples’ lives through a strong military and a secure social safety net- one that is not going bankrupt and in danger of collapse-, that the state should protect private property, and that people should be more free to make choices on issues such as healthcare. Republicans follow him, but are cautious in doing so, because they’ve been promised these sorts of things before and then were led astray by moderates and RINO’s, and the GOP today is a large and diverse political party filled with sometimes passionate oppositions. This Republican Party looks very much like the party did in the 1980’s and 1990’s, and one imagines that if Romney and the Republicans were to win power in 2012 that they would go about attempting to implement many of the important reforms that are needed to secure a better future for our nation.

I’m not the only one to pick up the emerging broader themes in this campaign- across the pond they’ve noticed it too. In the Telegraph on Sunday, British reporter Janet Daley wrote in We should tune in to the Romney and Ryan show: The myth of a democratic socialist society funded by capitalism is finished:

…Whatever the outcome of the American presidential election, one thing is certain: the fighting of it will be the most significant political event of the decade. Last week’s Republican national convention sharpened what had been until then only a vague, inchoate theme: this campaign is going to consist of the debate that all Western democratic countries should be engaging in, but which only the United States has the nerve to undertake. The question that will demand an answer lies at the heart of the economic crisis from which the West seems unable to recover. It is so profoundly threatening to the governing consensus of Britain and Europe as to be virtually unutterable here, so we shall have to rely on the robustness of the US political class to make the running.

What is being challenged is nothing less than the most basic premise of the politics of the centre ground: that you can have free market economics and a democratic socialist welfare system at the same time. The magic formula in which the wealth produced by the market economy is redistributed by the state – from those who produce it to those whom the government believes deserve it – has gone bust. The crash of 2008 exposed a devastating truth that went much deeper than the discovery of a generation of delinquent bankers, or a transitory property bubble. It has become apparent to anyone with a grip on economic reality that free markets simply cannot produce enough wealth to support the sort of universal entitlement programmes which the populations of democratic countries have been led to expect. The fantasy may be sustained for a while by the relentless production of phony money to fund benefits and job-creation projects, until the economy is turned into a meaningless internal recycling mechanism in the style of the old Soviet Union.

Or else democratically elected governments can be replaced by puppet austerity regimes which are free to ignore the protests of the populace when they are deprived of their promised entitlements. You can, in other words, decide to debauch the currency which underwrites the market economy, or you can dispense with democracy. Both of these possible solutions are currently being tried in the European Union, whose leaders are reduced to talking sinister gibberish in order to evade the obvious conclusion: the myth of a democratic socialist society funded by capitalism is finished. This is the defining political problem of the early 21st century.

Mitt Romney had been hinting, in an oblique, undeveloped way, at this line of argument as he moved tentatively toward finding a real message. Then he took the startling step of appointing Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate, and the earth moved. If Romney was the embodiment of the spirit of a free market, Ryan was its prophet. His speech at the convention was so dangerous to the Obama Democrats, with their aspirations toward European-style democratic socialism, that they unleashed their “fact checkers” to find mistakes (“lies”) in it. (Remember the old Yes Minister joke: “You can always accuse them of errors of detail, sir. There are always some errors of detail”.) When Romney and Ryan offer their arguments to the American people, they are, of course, at an advantage over almost any British or European politician. Contrary to what many know-nothing British observers seem to think, the message coming out of Tampa was not Tea Party extremism. It was just a reassertion of the basic values of American political culture: self-determination, individual aspiration and genuine community, as opposed to belief in the state as the fount of all social virtue. Romney caught this rather nicely in his acceptance speech, with the comment that the US was built on the idea of “a system that is dedicated to creating tomorrow’s prosperity rather than trying to redistribute today’s.” Or as Marco Rubio put it in his speech, Obama is “trying ideas that people came to America to get away from”.

So it would be deeply misleading to imply that this campaign will be a contest between what Britain likes to call “progressive” politics and some atavistic longing for a return to frontier America where everybody made a success of his own life with no help from anybody but his kith and kin…

…But in the course of this campaign, however it concludes, we are all going to get an education in what it might be possible to say if economic reality was actually confronted. Mr Ryan wound up his acceptance speech for the vice-presidential nomination with the chorus, “Our nation needs this debate. We want this debate. We will win this debate.” Some of us would like to have that debate here. We even think we might have a chance of winning it.

As a teacher, it is my job to help inspire critical thinking and debate so that we may all learn the truths and facts of this world- and I am glad that 2012 has become less of a fight for political power and more of an election about principles and a discussion of what truly makes America great.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Share

Is Your City or Town Going Bankrupt?

Share

Most of us follow national politics, many of us follow state politics, but how many are closely watching their own local politics? Your city or town might just be running deficits and facing bankruptcy- and when it does, their might be no one to bail them out, and police and fire and library and recreational services will be gone.

From The Trumpet story More U.S. Cities Going Bankrupt Indicate Nation’s Future:

…Last Friday, the city of Scranton sent out paychecks to its employees, as it does every two weeks. But these checks were for amounts significantly smaller than usual because Mayor Chris Doherty reduced all city employees’ pay – including his own – to the state minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. 

After sending out Friday’s checks, Scranton had only $5,000 left in the bank and still owed its 400 employees almost $1 million. 

Scranton’s police unions, firefighters’ union and public works unions have taken the city to court over the reduced pay, but Doherty says he has no other choice because the city is broke. His planned solution is to immediately raise taxes by 29 percent, and by 78 percent over the next three years. But the council wants the city to instead borrow money to solve Scranton’s fiscal woes. 

On Monday, Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis said, “It should be perfectly obvious to every soul on the planet that Scranton is bankrupt. Tax hikes are not the answer. The solution is filing bankruptcy with the hope of killing public union wages and benefits.” 

But like many other states, Pennsylvania has rules in place that prohibit cities from filing bankruptcy without approval from the state. Mish’s final assessment is that “Inept city management, with public union wages and benefits at the heart of it, killed Scranton.” Whether or not Pennsylvania is prepared to admit it, Scranton is bankrupt, and the tensions there are rising. 

And Scranton it is not the only U.S. city in such a condition. 

San Bernardino is expected to become the third Californian city in two weeks to file for municipal bankruptcy protection as it wrestles with increasing employee costs and declining tax revenues. Last fall, Jefferson County, Alabama, filed the biggest Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy in American history, leaving county commissioners planning to default on a general obligation bond payment. In late 2011, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, said it would default on a payment coming due to general obligation bondholders. Stockton, California, was in negotiations earlier this year in hopes of avoiding becoming the biggest American city yet to declare bankruptcy. The most recent reports said it is “very likely” that Stockton will go bankrupt. These are just a few of many examples. 

Many municipalities across the nation have found themselves pushed over the brink by the recession and its lingering aftermath. They are in dire financial straits with little hope of recovery. “This is truly a new era for dealing with troubled municipalities,” said Michael Stanton, publisher of The Bond Buyer, a public finance newspaper. 

Cities are going belly up while states and the nation hang on, largely because cities cannot rely on the deus ex machina currency printing that the larger entities rely on. Mayor Doherty explained that he does not have the same options as the Fed or even a state government, saying, “I want the employees to get paid. Our people work hard – our police and fire – I just don’t have enough money, and I can’t print it in the basement.” 

These cities are the canaries in the toxic coalmine that is the U.S. economy. Smaller and more fragile than states, they are succumbing to their economic ailments in tragic ways. But the canary analogy breaks down at that point because, unlike the coal miner who leaves the mine after watching his canary keel over, state and federal policymakers are not heeding the warning…

Check out the finances of your local city or village and you may just be surprised at what you find.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Share

Are Washington Leaders Ruining the Economy on Purpose or Are They Just Plain Ignorant?

Share

Government officials in Washington would have you believe that the economic decisions they are making are in the best interest of the public and that chief economic advisors agree they are doing the right thing. These officials would have you believe that running a country (economically speaking – macroeconomics) is vastly different than running your small business or your individual budget (microeconomics).  This is what they want you to believe, but in reality they are wrong.

Whether you are running a household, a business or a country, certain firm concrete realities exist.  The biggest one of those is: if you spend more money than you bring in, you WILL go broke!  Allowing our government to spend more than they bring in on a continuous basis is a crime.  If we tried that, we would go bankrupt. Eventuallty, we would run up against a huge wall and have to pay the consequences of our egregious spending. Yet U.S. citizens sit back and allow it to continue happening believing somehow that those in authority in Washington know more about what they are doing than we do.

So, what should government do to get things back under control? There is really only two alternatives – 1) bring in more money; or 2) reduce spending.  Of the two alternatives, the one that makes more sense is to reduce spending. Think about your household budget. You work 40+ hours a week making a certain amount of money. Which is the best way to go?  Do you go out and get a 2nd and/or 3rd job and try to work more hours to increase your income, or do you evaluate your budget and see where you can cut back? Maybe you quit getting weekly manicures and pedicures. Maybe you shop for your clothes at Sears instead of Macys. If you are in drastic financials straits, you sell your expensive home and cars and adopt a more modest lifestyle.

It is the same with big government. To keep increasing taxes in order to bring in more money is ludicious and unfair to the citizens and corporations of the United States. The most sane and common sense thing to do is to scale back the size of the federal government in order to decrease the amount of money being spent, yet no one in any of the governmental agencies want to do that, because it means losing their job and/or their power.  So that brings me to President Obama’s economic plan for his second term.

The Council on Foreign Affairs has a blog called “The Candidates and the World”. In their April 11th article entitled “Obama Makes New Case for Tax Hikes”, it says:

“President Barack Obama doubled down on his economic case for a second term, which he explained favors boosting social programs that benefit the middle-income Americans in sharp contrast withRepublican’s past and future proposals to spur growth with upper-income tax cuts.

“I’m saying, you’re bringing in a million bucks or more a year. Then, what the rrule says is you should pay the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle-class families do.  You shouldn’t get special tax breaks. You shouldn’t be able to get special loopholes,” he said. “And if we do that, then it makes it  affordable for us to be able to say for those people who make under $250,000 a year – like 98 percent of American families do – then your taxes don’t go up.”

On the surface this sounds reasonable. It does seem reasonable that the really rich pay the same percentage as the middle class. Nobody wants to pay more taxes, right? However, when you follow that logic to it’s conclusion then the middle class would end up a lot worse off than they are right now and our country would be economically worst off.  I’ll try to explain how.

First, there is a story in basic economics calls “The Broken Window” by Bastiat. It goes like this:

A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker’s shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. They remind each other and the baker that the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glass-maker. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Fifty dollars? That will be quite a sum. After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? The glass-maker will have $50 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $50 more to spend with still other merchants, and so on. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be that the little hoodlum who threw the brick was actually a public benefactor.

Now let us take another look. This little act of vandalism will provide more business for some glass-maker, but the shopkeeper will be out $50 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace a window, he will have to go without the suit (or some other need or luxury). Instead of having a window and $50 he now has merely a window. If we think of him as a part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.

The glass-maker’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business. No new “employment” has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glass-maker. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new winodw in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, prescisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye.

So here is the application – if Obama raises the taxes on corporations and individuals making over $250,000, especially those making a million or more, that extra cost will trickle down to the middle class. If you are a company who now has to pay more taxes, then one of two things has to happen.

1) reduce your net profits or
2) pass the amount of increased taxes down to the consumer (us) by increasing the price of that product or service.

Neither of those two scenarios are good for the average middle class American.

In reducing their profits, they then cannot increase the amount of product they make. They cannot invent, create and grow their business. They cannot hire additional people, and may even have to lay-off people.

In the second scenario – passing the cost down to the consumer – we pay more for the products and/or services we purchase which in turn reduces the amount of money we can spend and products we can buy.

The goal of the federal government should be to make it easier in our country for our companies big and small to do business and make profits. This, in turn, will increase employment rates and decrease the cost of products and services that the middle class has to buy.

Instead Washington needs to decrease the amount of money they spend in order to decrease the deficits in Washington. They need to decrease the scope of government in order to decrease the amount of money they spend. The first step they should take is to totally shut down The Department of Education. It is a useless and damaging agency. From there, let the slashing begin.

So what is the answer to the originial question?  Are Washington leaders ruining the Economy on purpose or are they just plain ignorant? Well I really can’t answer that question. Only God knows the heart of men. However, my women’s intuition says that they are purposefully trying to bring an economic crisis to the United States. For what purpose? Central Planning and Socialism maybe or setting the stage for global governance? Who knows. Let me know what you think Washington is up to!

Original Post:  Faithful In Prayer

Share

Germany Levying Special Tax of 1% on Young Workers to Support Bankrupt Entitlement Programs; Is This the Future for America too?

Share

As a teacher, every day I go to school and work my tail off teaching the future of America the skills, concepts, abilities, and information they are going to need to be successful citizens. I am passionate about our future; I work daily with the youth of our nation; and I care about this issue. And it pisses me off to see the future for these students so clearly and yet know that some of them are going to be voting Democrat in the coming election.

Under President Obama and the new extreme liberal Democratic Party, our nation’s debt has skyrocketed, and if the President’s budgets would be passed the debt would be even worse (thankfully the President’s budgets are such a joke that not even his own party will vote to pass them). It will fall on the youth to shoulder this debt load, by sacrificing liberty, national security, and property- they will be pushed around by the foreign nations we owe money to, they will have higher inflation and interest payments that will sap their property, and they will be forced to pay back debts that they did not accept.

A nation that is collapsing under debt will inevitably attempt to balance the budget by raising taxes and fees on young, hard-working, profitable people so that old, non-working, unprofitable people can continue to receive the transfers of wealth that were promised to them and for which they continue to vote for those who promise them more.

Germany is already going down this path– they recognize that it is much easier to take money from the youth and hard-working to patch up entitlement programs that were not designed properly years ago. Rather than admit that they messed up and designed badly structured retirement or healthcare programs, instead they are going to be taking increased amounts of wealth from the young and working while at the same time promising them a reduced retirement and healthcare:

GERMANY is proposing to levy extra taxes on the young to pay for the costs of the country’s growing numbers of old people, under government plans for a ”demographic reserve” levy.

Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats have drafted proposals that, if law, would require all those over 25 to pay a proportion of their income to cushion Germany against a looming population crisis.

The German Chancellor’s ruling party is seeking extra sources of revenue to pay for soaring pensions and bills for social care costs as Germany’s ”baby boomer”generation ages amid a decline in the birth rate.

The proposals, to be adopted by Dr Merkel’s party cabinet after the Easter break, have not yet set a figure on the age tax but officials are considering a special levy of about 1 per cent of income.

This is the future for America under Democratic policies- assuming that they ever attempt to address the looming entitlement crisis in our nation and not just simply pretend it doesn’t exist or implement more quantitative easing to increase the money supply.

The Patient and Affordable Care Act, the one substantial piece of legislation that the Democrats have passed over the last several years to address the crisis in our nation, does just this- its centerpiece and most important part is a provision which demands that healthy young people buy insurance so that their wealth and labor will be transferred to unhealthy older people. The backbone of Obamacare is the use of young labor to provide benefits to older or unhealthy or poor people- and this is immoral, unethical, and wrong.

Young people are getting used in Germany, and will soon be used here in America- their labor is being used by others and they are not going to see the benefits of their labor now (since they are paying higher taxes and fees and their wealth is being transferred to others) and they are not going to see the benefits of their labor later (the entitlement programs that they are going to be working to save will be greatly reduced in scope and scale when they eventually get to take advantage of them).

To read more of my posts on this subject, check out America’s Youth Will Rue the Day They Voted for Obama and Unemployment Increases in Young People Under Obama: A New Lost Generation of Youth?.

UPDATE: According to a story in yahoo, 1 in 2 new graduates are jobless or underemployed, just like I predicted they would be as the United States adopts European style government under Obama and his Loyalist/Progressive/Fascist allies.

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher

Share

Mine Union Boss Suddenly Realizes that Obama Wants to Kill Coal: Amazement Ensues

Share

Conservatives have known that Obama has it in for all things coal.  We know this because he’s said so-no prophesy or divination required! However, it seems that quite a few people didn’t pay attention to what candidate Obama was saying.  Case in point, Cecil Roberts, boss of bosses of the United Mine Workers.  Apparently, Cecil just now realized that Obama is going to put a lot of his “constituents” out of work…

The coal industry will suffer the same fate as Osama bin Laden under new climate regulations proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the head of the United Mine Workers of America said this week.

“The Navy SEALs shot Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan and Lisa Jackson shot us in Washington,” Cecil Roberts, president of the powerful union, said during an interview Tuesday on the West Virginia radio show MetroNews Talkline.

Roberts blasted Jackson, the EPA administrator, over the proposed regulations, which would limit greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants. Opponents of the regulations, including Roberts, say the new rules would be the death knell of the coal industry.

New coal-fired power plants would have to install technology to capture carbon dioxide emissions in order to comply with the rules. The technology, known as carbon capture and storage (CCS), “is not commercially available,” Roberts said.

“This rule is an all-out, in my opinion, decision by the EPA that we’re never going to have another coal-fired facility in the United States that’s constructed,” Roberts said.

Er, Cecil, Obama said he would do this in 2008.

Yes, that’s a short clip, but for the purposes of this post, it will suffice.  Longer versions are available on YouTube.

At any rate, welcome to what we like to call reality, Cecil.  It’s usually a shock to suddenly realize that socialists do eat their own, and the workers you represent are now on the menu.  But Cecil, did your union give millions to Obama in 2008, and after learning this, will the union fund more of their own demise this year?  The choice is yours, but I really don’t think you want to sell out the rank and file, and then have them find out about it, do you?

Share